Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Beckjord

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was keep. (10 deletes, 16 keeps, a whole lot of comments and I'm not too sure about Herostratus's comment...) – Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Beckjord[edit]

Vanity page created by disruptive editor. Delete as quickly as possible. --Nlu (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete actually Speedy Delete unless claims to have taken spirit photographs such famous deceased persons as Nicole Brown Simpson counts as notability. Nuff said. Eusebeus 10:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete. Vanity. Can this not be db-bio'ed? Main contributor seems to be User:Beckjord. This user has been pretty veciferous (which is ok) and uncivil (which is not) about defending his contributions to various articles (see User_talk:Beckjord and this article's own talk page). Zunaid 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my vote to a keep following DanielCD's rewrite. Article is now much more NPOV, balanced and well referenced. Zunaid 06:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about speedy deleting it, but it does seem to assert notability. If I get a bit more of a consensus that it should go, I may speedy delete it. --Nlu (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy it if you like. — mark ✎ 11:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or transwiki to Crankopedia. There isn't one? Shame. --Squiddy 12:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article isn't originally written by Beckjord, but by a user called Zagalejo and there is no reason to assume that Zagalejo is identical with Beckjord - the original version doesn't look anything like what one would have expected him to post here, judging from his latest prose and autobiographical claims. See also Zagalejo's comment here. u p p l a n d 12:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment: As an anon. pointed out yesterday in the article (since removed), this Beckjord is encouraging vandalism of Wikipedia on his own bigfoot forum. His heading (in reference to Wikipedia) probably says it all, "NEW FORUM TO TRASH!!!!!!!"[1]. u p p l a n d 13:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain and Comment A few TV appearances is not enough to really be notable. Neither is being wild and obnoxious on Internet sites or making bizarre claims. I'd like to hear from Zagalejo about where he has heard of Beckjorn. --DanielCD 14:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have looked about, and I think the man is worth a mention. There are resources out there that can be used to write an objective article, and I think by keeping it, it should be totally re-written and only use material from refs. I will volunteer to write the new article if no one else is interested. But please don't vote to delete because he pissed you off. I'm not saying any of you are, but the man doesn't exactly make you gleam with his grace. --DanielCD 14:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / reduce to rubble / and then burn the rubble / and then scatter the ashes. On his web site, this person has urged his readers: "Got to http://www.en.wikipedia.org. Search for Erik Beckjord, Bigfoot, Cryptozoology and Nessie, and edit/cut/delete them 100%. Then return once a week and do it again." Herostratus 14:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please be objective. Just because someone hates Wikipedia does not mean we should censor their bio. If we cut him out for that reason, then all the crap being said in the editorials about Wikipedia is being vindicated. I'd to hear some more objective reasons. I don't see this as a vanity page; Zagalejo created the page, and...there's no way he's a sock puppet. I think we'd be able to tell. --DanielCD 14:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - keep it if DanielCD can make a decent, verified rewrite. u p p l a n d 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In its current state it seems this article is losing the battle to stay alive. I suggest that between Zagalejo and DanielCD the article be rewritten so that we have an opportunity to reassess our votes before it gets consigned to the bin. Zunaid 15:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah. Whoever decided that making yourself a nuisance on the internet is a claim to fame needs to be flogged. Still, there's no reason to delete the article out of dislike for it's subject. I don't see that he meets WP:BIO, so I say delete on those grounds. Friday (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article is accurate, he looks like a sufficiently "notable" crackpot. Sources should be used, but I don't see a reason to delete. Friday (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow... Yes, I'm the one who started the page. Beckjord is a very well-known figure among people interested in paranormal phenomena, so I still think we should keep this article. As far as my sources go, his museum was actually mentioned by CNN, and you can find some more information about him on Coast to Coast AM's page. I've also participated on some of the message boards where he trumpted his claims. (For example, you can find a reference to his activity on cryptozoology.com - though most of his posts were under false names, or have been deleted.)
If possible, I think we should try to make an objective rewrite before deleting the page entirely (just leave me a message). Zagalejo 15:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Zagalejo et all.
  1. Even if he is notable, he's not very notable. So adding his bio only adds a tiny amount to Wikipedia's value as a reference tool.
  2. Keeping this article means that it will have to be NPOV.
  3. This will likely enrage the subject, causing him to try to get more people to vandalize Wikipedia.
  4. If successful, this will force the diversion of resources to preventing that -- resources that could be be spent creating and improving useful articles.
  5. Therefore, retaining this article is likely to result in a net loss to Wikipedia's value as a research tool. And that's the bottom line, I think.
Yes the diversion of resources and general headache is bearable, but why? Who needs it?. I had a very similar comment a couple days ago to to someone who created (re-created I guess) an article for hyper-disruptive editor Marc Perkel. It adds up, and how, exactly, does this help to build an encylopedia? And this guy is worse than a disruptive editor. He's recruiting disruptive editors. Wikipedia is not a suicide pact.Herostratus 16:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually your argument indicates why we should not delete on the basis of disruption. If we do, we encourge people to disrupt other articles because they don't want an NPOV article to exist for a controversial topic. Whether to keep or delete should be decided purely on other factors. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have attempted a rewrite, using the resources I have at have (this is not my comp and many pages were...blocked somehow. But take it or leave it. I've voted and attempted to do it right, though it was speedily written and is very rough. Anyhow, I've said my piece and will now back off. If someone thinks the re-write is not an improvement, just revert it. With this I rest my case and am going to find something actually useful to do. --DanielCD 16:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's a kook, but he is a notable kook who has managed to get multiple mentions in national media. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have to agree with DanielCD (and not because we have the same name) and Caerwine. The subject of the article may be a crank, but we don’t delete articles because the subject is a crank. He seems to be making a name for himself, mostly because he is a crank. (We should have a Category:Cranks.) ◎DanMS 17:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think DanielCD's rewrite is pretty good. I do understand the concern, though. We should wait and see how EB reacts to the new edits. If he's still disruptive, then maybe we have to delete the page. However, I still think he is notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, so I hope we can work something out. Zagalejo 18:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He may be a nutcase and a potentially disruptive editor, but that doesn't make him non-notable. I don't think it would be too difficult to make the article conform to NPOV standards. Issues with the guy as a user should be treated seperately.--Cuchullain 22:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't be too afraid of him. Each time he comes on site it only takes him a few minutes to break enough rules to be blocked. Eventually he'll get bored and move on. As for his site asking people to trash Wikipedia...does anyone really think that anyone who takes this guy seriously is going to have the IQ to be able to find the site and figure out how to edit? --DanielCD 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that, and I think DanielCD has done a great job with the page so far.--Cuchullain 23:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He's having a fit actually... Here's what he's telling people:

"Tell them that it is good they edited my page or the page about me, to be more fair than before, since really nobody but a sysop or an admin can make any edits in the main page article "stick". Wikipedia has this quaint idea that non-experts can edit the work of experts. Amateurs can edit the work of pros,etc. This puts Joe Six Pack on the level of Dr. Steven Hawking. Any, try to enter that www.ufomind.com is a a trashing site and some 15 victims have tried to sue the webmaster, who thumbs his nose at them. ufomind.com is trashing me als, and many fools actually believe it is written on the internet, that it MUST be true. Bonk! Am I vitriolic? Only when unfairly attacked, first. Am I malicious? Only against hoaxers and attackers. Do I flame? Only against flamers. Wikipedia people are very naive and ignore all this. Is is "bad" to threaten a lawsuit? Only in the mind of a naive 16 yr old. Oooh, ooh, he threatened a lawsuit! WOW! Nasty! Mean! -- -well, jerks, what if a car runs down your mother and you have to sue the driver? Is this "bad"...??? Or is someone defames you unfairly, --OOH,OOH, he threatened to sue....OH DEAR! Wikipedians, get real... however, my thanks for at least some fairness. Next, how about some reality on new items on Bigfoot? The Bigfoot page is bad,bad,bad."

My own experiences with the man lead me to believe he's a complete wacko. He's been known to edit and photo shop in his efforts to legitimize himself and he has a habit of stalking people.--VilaWolf

To Whom it May Concern I think it should be noted that VilaWolf is a very new user. How new? The above is the very first edit in his record, not even 24 hours. Material was added to both user and talk page...perhaps to make them show up blue? This might be of interest to anyone considering the above info. --DanielCD 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Psychosis is a word that comes to mind. --DanielCD 03:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no encyclopedic value.--nixie 04:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- he's certainly notable in the field. The arguments being used to try to justify a delete vote (threat of disruption, being a kook, etc.) are not encyclopedic reasons to delete something, and if they were we'd have to remove articles on SOLLOG, Scientology, Creationism and so forth. Come on people, think before you vote. DreamGuy 05:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, this field is just now getting the scientific attention it deserves.Octavious 15:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Octavious[reply]
    • Note The above vote will not count unless the author returns and signs it himself. --DanielCD 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • and is a registered user. Anons don't count. --Nlu (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • User has returned and signed it. However, these are his/her first edits. --Nlu (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Beckjord made some requests at Talk:Erik Beckjord that sound somewhat reasonable and he might be tryting to throw a bone. However, I am rather exhausted at this endeavor. I was hoping someone might try to accomodate some of his suggestions, referencing his statements as "According to..." or something. I think an effort should definitely be made when a user shows improvement, even if it's only a little: it's showing effort and calls for a reasonable reply. I might do it later, but now I'm just not up to it and was hoping someone else could pick up the ball a bit. Perhaps Zagalejo ? --DanielCD 19:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo 19:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI am not Zalago --- says Beckjord. Why must my critics assume nobody might support me in any way? That I would be a sock puppet? Zalago is not me. I assure you. beckjordBeckjord 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Vila Wolf is a user on my forum. She got mad at me recently when I asked her to stop her habit of writing "boo" on ALL her subject lines. [2]. Personal anger should not enter into this. Vila can still post with me. beckjordBeckjord 19:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry for exhausting you. But the basic problem here is a battle between Internet Soccer Yobs and intelligent people. There is an Internet False Equality Syndrome where users with a username feel empowered and equal to credentialled scientists and/or field workers with exerience. Guess what -- they are NOT equal. And for this, legions of yobbos go after me.(Soccer yobs tear up train coaches on way to games and fight in the streets using carpet knives.)
Well, interdimensional theories, and possible travel by entities between such is a valid topic for the Wikipedia. Dr Micho Saku of CUNY is now gettng into this. I have evidence this is happening. The yobbos want to muzzle me and delete me.
If users think I am arrogant, I am sorry, but I have done a great deal using my time at the expense of a wealthy career. I'm not rich, but I have many events to relate. Here.[3] Vote to NOT delete. I buy a pitcher of beer when we meet someday, for all supporters, each. :-) Also, I love my dog and cat. Toby and Twinkie.... BecjordBeckjord 20:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. Nandesuka 20:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've moved Beckjord's comments to the discussion page. Please refer there if you are interested. Beckjord, I'm going to keep moving them there until you format them properly. --DanielCD 20:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article states that he is a crank who has done some Stuff. However, there is no indication that people actually care. Pilatus 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing that Beckjorn didn't write this article and everthing that has transpired, I'd like to challenge all these users calling this a "vanity" post. Find another reason, because I just don't think that's valid.
Also, "no indication that people actually care". Um, what?? Leno, Letterman...ppl don't get on there if people don't care.
I respect your votes. But please give reasons with more substance. People have put in a lot of time and effort here. That means nothing in regards to deleting or keeping the article, but I think it at least deserves some more detailed reasons. --DanielCD 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, before voting to delete, make sure you read the newest versions. DanielCD and Zagalejo have done a lot of work adding appropriate sources, maintaining neutrality and asserting nobility. It no longer reads as ranting or vanity.--Cuchullain 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, I don't get any notability here and I'm unjustifiably influenced by his attitude. Stifle 23:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh. How about making Eric Beckjord a redirect to Marc Perkel, and making Marc Perkel a redirect to Eric Beckjord? (lame joke.) I think it kind of proves my point, to see that dozens of people are caught up right here in dealing with these D-list self-promoters, while meanwhile worthwhile RfC's are going begging. I responded to a RfC for Russian Architecture, which has a difficult and fraught issue. And I am the only one so far (except for involved parties and one person who just said "I agree".) So you see what I mean? It's already happening. Sorry, that was out of line. Herostratus 00:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So simply because I am new to the process completely invalidates everything I have to say? I am not allowed to have an opinion because I am new? Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I am not mad, just a little annoyed. And Smurf.. you demanded I have a subject line so I put in a subject. You seem to be angry that I prefer to speak in complete sentences and not in bits and pieces. But lets set that aside for a moment. I am not mad at you. At least not for that. It's your attitude about the troops that convinced me that my time would be better spent on another website.

This is suppose to be an objective website. And as much as I would hate to admit it, the Smurf has just barely made a name for himself as to have a place on this site. But given my experience with him, I believe that he will not be able to resist the temptation to alter or sway an article concerning him. Does that mean that it should be taken down? No, it does not. But it will certainly have to be monitored. VilaWolf

  • Vila...you havent even voted. wtf?

:And Herostratus...what are you talking about? If I'm here, it's because I want to be here. Just because a subject doesn't appeal to you doesn't put you a pedistle above the others to whom it matters. Don't pretend to tell people where they should and shouldn't be and start polishing your nuts over some Russian Architecture article. Pump your ego elsewhere please.

As a reminder: "At the end of the discussion, if a rough consensus has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains." --DanielCD 01:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this was a little over the edge as well. I apologise for losing my cool Herostratus. --DanielCD 03:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's OK. I want to be a better editor and participant. Sometimes we all need a little knock on the head. Herostratus 03:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough to get mention on the radio. As a sidenote, we WILL NOT give in to threats of vandalism. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Got to balance real world informational value versus amount of effort it would take to keep that information factual and fair. Scientology is a pain in the ass to keep factual and fair, but it's something people CARE about. This guy has a couple of talk show appearances and has called for an aggressive vandalism campaign. The balance isn't there, gang. Tom Lillis 09:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just wanted to reiterate that Beckjord is a very well-known personality among those who are interested in paranormal phenomena. It's simply not fair to say that no one cares about him. They may not admire him, but they are interested in him. Just mention his name on any cryptozoology message board; you'll get all kinds of responses. I mean, I won't lose any sleep if we have to delete the page, but just keep it in mind that he is very notable in some circles.
Oh, and I'm willing to monitor the page periodically for vandalism. It seems to have died down lately, though. Zagalejo 23:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frankley, I think Beckjord's already lost interest. It's on my watchlist as well. Takes about ten second to revert any vandal. --DanielCD 04:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough and I don't see any grounds for speedy. -- JJay 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In defense 1)Beckjord has removed 6 days ago, maybe 7, from his forum, any suggestion to trash Wikipedia. There is no such threat of vandalism. Repeated reference to this non-event are irrelevant from the guy with the Russian letters name.Evidence: visit http://www.bigfootforums.net

2) Who is interested in Beckjord? 20 Million People on the Letterman show, 15 million on the Jay Leno show, nine million people on the Coast to Coast AM show. Other millions from NBC,CBS, CNN,BBC and others. Unpopular (as science pioneers often are) as he may be to some, he has come to represent Bigfoot research and CZ research. His work is cutting edge and is evennow influencing writers as Chris Murphy, "Meet the Sasquatch" who previously held to older ideas. Reference? Evidence? visit http://www.hancockhouse.com and click on the Murphy Files forum. You will see a sea change in this man.

3) Beckjord does no "vandalism". He offers his expertise in the topics. He does edits and critics jump in and declare, unfairly, that these edits are vandalism, when they in fact are not. Evidence: common sense.

Merry Wikipedia to all, and a Happy New article. If I offer multiple comments, it is in order to refute false info. beckjord205.208.227.49 19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: And this my friends, is standard behavior of Beckjord, man of a thousand IP addresses. He's also failed to bring up the fact that he's repeatedly made false claims such as his 9/11 "consulting services" that were nothing more that his boosting his own ego and trying to profit from disaster. "Calls not from media are returned collect." as he is fond of saying. Can we say Egoism? VilaWolf
  • Weak keep. As he's been featured on national print and television media he's at least as notable as many other people who have Wikipedia articles. If I saw him on Letterman or some other TV show, my first thought would be to turn to Wikipedia for NPOV information. —Psychonaut 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note re Vila Wolf: this a lady who is unhappy I banned her from my discussion forum for her refusal to stop sending in all her posts with the subject line "boo", which made it hard for other readers to decide what her issue in each case was. She now does not like me. Soon, she will accuse me of stealing candy from children.

beckjord205.208.227.49 20:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In further defense: I have just web-published ( http://www.beckjord.com/originoflife ) my Multidensional Theory of the Origin of Life , which ties in with alleged interdimensional travel by alleged strange beings as often discussed in cryptozoology. (Kangamoto,Bigfoot,Nessie,etc) In time, I will submit this theory for an article in Wikipedia. I do not have to be Einstein to follow up on his ideas, nor do I need to be Kant or Hegel to suggest a theory. BTW, somemone accused me of extreme arrogance to suggest I had "done" a Jane Goodall-type experiment with Bigfoot. First, I know Dr. G in person, and second, I merely *attempted* such an experiment. Bigfoot creatures ate my food, appeared once, but they never sat down in my lap. They did, however, show up on film, even if not seen. http://www.bigfoot.org

Have a good one. The world changes all the time.

Beckjord205.208.227.49 20:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Reason: There is independent matter that exists that supports the position that Bigfoot may be both a simple animal and be a Interdimensional Creature. The reason there are no bodies is that predators and scavengers destroy them, (which also frustrates law enforcement looking for evidence in murder cases), in the case of the animal bigfoot, while a alien(to us) has abilities that are considered bizarre, and this thing may be from another plane of existance. Personally,I believe that Bigfoot is BOTH a simple animal native to Earth AND I've seen independent evidence that indicates that a alien "Bigfoot" is also visiting this planet. The Interdimensional Bigfoot has known bizarre abilities such as glowing eyes, superstrength, teleports, is telepathic/empathic,and if fired on, weapons have no effect. There are as stated two creatures, one is a animal native to Earth, the other one is a alien from another dimension. As for "vanity", one should dump all of the celebrity articles such as Jay Lenno, David Letterman, Howard Stern, since they personally promote them. The reason I'm investigating Bigfoot myself is that I'm monitoring the Fouke,AR situation, and have heard that one was seen in a nearby county I was living in. As to the "nuts" references, read the Robertson Panel. This states that the CIA had initiated this to "reduce" interest in UFOs, and one facet is to have people who has had encounters w/ UFOs/Aliens to be declared mentally unfit, since psychiatrists are also employed to do this. Should there be alien contact, some of these people may revolt out of vengeance and/or for religious reasons. While travelling the US, I've been told about this matter as well. I travel the US as, among other things, as a prospector and as a paranormal investigator, and I've seen things that are beyond belief. The reason people are shooting @ Bigfoot is to provide the "Skeptics" a BODY for their examination.Martial Law 21:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be a reason to keep Bigfoot. How does that make it an argument to keep Erik Beckjord? --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen his personal website, this is'nt his personal website,thus the "keep vote".Martial Law 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no "vanity",etc. on here, thus the keep vote,otherwise we'd have to throw out the celebrity articles, since this promotes the celebrities themselves.Martial Law 04:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has anyone seen the man's user page? It inspired something of a heated exchange between him and myself on his talk page. The highlights: he compares himself to Albert Einstein and Fred Alan Wolf and declares his intention to flout policy when he believes that it needs flouting. The talk page discussion is similarly rich; he trots out the old claim that Wikipedia is flawed because the common editor has as much clout as "experts" and he reiterates his belief that since we're all wrong and he knows better, he can do whatever he feels necessary to fix it. Hell, look above: he's already planning to submit material which is unequivocably original research.

Maybe we should keep the article and include all of this stuff. Mm. Tom Lillis 04:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Wikipedia.org paranoid dungeon-keeper Nlu freaks out: they are paranoid if you use language in any way they feel threatened by. Well, "Nlu", ALL of my contributions are valuable, you fu*king freak. You must be some type of moron. Go downstairs and torture some prisoners. Comb your matted hair on the way, and brush your single tooth. (Think of a video games dungeon-keeper out of the Hobbit movies.)

Wikipedia is the place where losers edit the articles of winners, novices edit the articles of pros. The NY Times warns its staff to avoid it for fact-checking.

Sneaky Beckjord"

  • Keep. Notable weirdo. A User to watch, as well, though. The Land 10:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disliking the editor isn't a reason for doing things about the article. Number of media appearances quoted in the article appear to verify notability, if not sanity.--Fangz 10:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Paranormal research? Ooookay .... I was going to say delete but people in here are attesting to his notability, and who am I to argue with that? Just because I haven't heard of the whacko ... --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, clearly topical David D. (Talk) 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bigfort is an urban legend and very well known whereas this fellow isn't.--Skip Flea 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this edit is the user's fourth. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erik_Beckjord&oldid=1140391054"