Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (4th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Does not meet WP notability standards. Mr. Bellinghaus appeared in bit parts in mostly German films and television in the 1980s, and owns Monroe memorabilia. Apparently he has been involved in disputes with other collectors/people who claim to have been close to Monroe, but these debates are in no way notable enough to warrant a WP inclusion. If you google him, besides the IMdB etc. listings that come up due to his minor 80s acting career, the only other reliable sources mentioning him seem to be a LA Weekly article and some mentions in the OC Register. Furthermore, if you take a look at the talk page/deletion discussions/page history, you will find that Mr. Bellinghaus created the WP article himself and was involved in the deletion discussions. The previous deletion processes in 2008 were unsuccessful largely due to the LA Weekly article making him 'marginally notable' (by the way, some content from said article seems to have been copied in verbatim to the current article). Given that the article was in the first place created by Mr. Bellinghaus and his notability seems limited to the aforementioned article and some minor mentions elsewhere, all published in 2005–2008, I don't think he warrants an article on WP. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 18:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - his English article is completely ridiculous stating he is a "Marilyn Monroe activist" and "first rate skeptical investigator" or whatever imaginary thing he thinks he is. He is, however, cited as a "leading Marilyn Monroe expert" in RS. Unfortunately all the articles about him from 2007/2008 etc are 404 but article was a keep in 2008 (3rd nom). His German article is 1/10th the size and I think that would be suitable... —Мандичка YO 😜 09:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that's just what he likes to call himself – I've never heard a MM biographer refer to him :) I've recently re-written Monroe's article and did a good deal of research for it, but had never heard of this man before seeing his article on WP. Given that all of the articles about him are from 2005–2008, and he doesn't seem to even have his website anymore, I have a feeling he isn't even that active in "Monroe activism" anymore. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Yeah, I'm going to say delete. The previous arguments for keep were actually not really based on GNG policy but outdated arguments (there are lots of Google hits for him, etc). And I couldn't find anything related to him being active as an actor anymore. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP Clearly notable has hundreds of coverages in important news sources and is a principle figure in Marilyn Monroe history and biography, to delete this would be the act of a vandal desecrator and philistine. Do not dare let the article be deleted. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * — Ricahrd Octave III (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. What has this got to do with anything?? Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence of this? You'll need to be able to back up your claim as at the moment it seems that the opposite is true. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * KEEP Here is just the start of the evidence for you:


 * -- Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote. None of those links satisfy requirements at WP:GNG. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck unnecessary comment. User clearly has not read all the articles. Ricahrd Octave III (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Does anyone know the policy on things like this User:Mmmovie/Mark_Bellinghaus? It shows up in Google searches just as highly ranked as the main article. I understand the need for draft work space but it essentially hasn't been edited since creation in 2007. -- Green  C  21:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it to MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mmmovie/Mark Bellinghaus. Thanks for catching that. —Мандичка YO 😜 13:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment some additional RS refs in Google News. One paper in Australia, The Age, mentioned him in passing calling him "a leading Marilyn Monroe expert" but that doesn't make it true based on such a brief mention by a single paper - if he was a "leading expert" we should see him cited by peers because there are tons of books and articles about Monroe by actual published experts. -- Green  C  22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - acting career does not meet WP:NACTOR. He has never published anything about Monroe other than self-published online blog material - he is not an author or recognized by his peers in the world of Monroe historiography which is extensive. The LA Weekly article, the best sources, is a human interest story about Bellingcat because he is a quirky collector but there has not been sustained coverage - his website is down, no other human interest stories. The other mentions where he was involved in a couple controversies are minor and don't add up to a lot outside NOTNEWS. The article itself is based on a lot of non-RS. -- Green  C  22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm really protesting the cancellation process, as it has become a farce, such a procedure. If you search for the pages of history Mark Bellinghaus the article you can see that it found some people who apparently tried to hide what Bellingshaus and others. It has been several times to other persons vandalizing This site in particular, who came to cause only for the purpose of damage has already been seen, and in some cases, it has Mark Bellinghaus things that are harmful to his personality supposedly. It is quite obvious to anyone who for the details about the event that you are looking fought for people to want to hurt him and discredit him for everything he achieved. Also, I find it extremely important to warn the public about fraud scams.

I think to reach everyone in the United States to be an actor / actress, even if she can not prove that all the work that they have carried out in this profession. Again, it is obvious that some people would follow Bellinghaus everywhere you go. Mr. Bellinghaus has been the victim of identity theft several times. Relationships are important to the whole picture of a person who is considered the entire talent to the public about a group of people who are out to harm the population, supported warn fraudulent exhibitions, memorabilia and signs that say, to use what they are No. The unveiling of a woman who was himself named in June DiMaggio, Marilyn Monroe story is extremely important, because this woman claims that Monroe was murdered, and that he was a friend of Monroe 11 years. When such people get away with claims, I hope you are agree, we all had a hard time to explore the life and history of a person of interest. Before I added the importance of relationships and support of Mark Bellinghaus products contain an offer, and I have cited two very interesting (in my opinion). I'm going to now be removed, and I hope that we agree us on an acceptable result. I researched before you edit something, and I have not found evidence of a major exhibition scandal or fraud. Mayb you should check with the various scams happening in the UK be familiar, but it was the museum display and fraud was a fake skull, probably thousands of years old. Again, we need to know, because the crime is still so fresh in the Marilyn Monroe exhibition of fraud, who tried the followers of such crimes, to bring Mr. Bellinghaus to silence or to belittle the work to the public. I did not want to see the article at fan page, which also turn complained. I'm a fan of investigations on facts and on the basis of the success of the first exposures Mark Bellinghaus really speaks for itself. He was a scandal, and he anything to this scandal was exposed and attached a brighter, more fireworks, when he discovered more and more crime. I could go on and on it you can see, but I really feel that it is important, and fully supported, if you can manage to make a difference to support and not attack him and clears him / her in our society. The founder of the site is very nice, but it was all over the news because of a personal, private matter. They are all for editors now doomed, simply because the founder of the personal belongings Wikipedia about eBay sold in the previous partners? Please think of this as well.

I'll take a quote from the article, and I contacted a few other editors to explore this question. The neutral Editors, the better. I also do not agree to delete the references. The more information, the better. BellinghausFan1000 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly does not meet the notability criteria. Very few trivial mentions on News, Highbeam and Scholar, and zip on Newspapers. Books had more than a few, but all trivial.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of notability, all sources mentions are either passing mentions or not reliable, the single purpose accounts doesn't give a policy based reasoning for deletion. Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.