Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Kuh

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 was no consensus. Maxim(talk) 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Kuh

Brian Kuh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable: no sources ABOUT this person are provided, just sources that reference him. The article has other issues, such as low constructive editing activity and few pages that link to it. Croctotheface (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure whether that site would be considered a reliable source or not. Not sure what you mean by "extensive" or whether that's really the test so much as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which I just don't see for this person. Also, this anonymous account appears to be an SPA. Croctotheface (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
He does have significant, reliable sourcing and the Guiness Book of World Records uses Twin Galaxies for their video game records, so they certainly can be relied upon here.
Well, my issue is not with whether the website's record keeping is reliable; it's whether this is the kind of independent sourcing we would need for a general purpose encyclopedia. That website is really for a niche, and I don't think it gets to "significance" or "independence" even if there is a debate to be had regarding reliability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd and the page must stay. For example, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/08/19/bizarro_world?mode=PF is about him in large part. User:sampackgregory —Preceding comment was added at 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be another SPA. That article mentions Kuh ONCE; it is not about him. It would go to verifiability, not notability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
16 mentions in Guiness? Pretty notable. Sampackgregory (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Are all of those records reprinted in the GBR? It's not used as a source for his article, and I suspect that not every record at Twin Galaxies is also reprinted by Guinness. Croctotheface (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The documentary isn't about him, it's about Steve Weibe and Billy Mitchell. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an expanded online version of the Guinness Book, there are plenty of people in Guinness who won't ever have WP articles, nor should they. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep just sources that reference him"--gven thatt they are apparently reliable, that would seem enough; I cant really judge to what extent the references are significant/. but certainly that "The article has other issues, such as low constructive editing activity and few pages that link to it" are not reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I have always worked on the assumption that "significant coverage" meant things like a lot of news articles ABOUT a topic or an entire book ABOUT a topic. If a couple of mentions in a couple sources are enough to establish notability, I can't imagine that anything except patent nonsense or vanity articles could be deleted for lacking notability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep That may be true, but that's the point. I.e. the standard of notability is rather low on purpose. That allows for the creation of pages about things that are important even though it's hard to find that information elsewhere. That is one of the great benefits of wikipedia. Paraphrasing print encyclopedias is not the whole point. The above assumption is not backed by actual policy and it isn't in the best interest of wikipedia. Wikipedia would lose half of its pages and much of its value if such an assumption were implemented into policy.Sampackgregory (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Most pages aren't the subject of significant coverage? Or a couple of mentions in a couple of articles is "significant"? I don't think my interpretation of notability guidelines are in the minority at all. In fact, your position is certainly not "backed up by policy", and in fact it appears to run afoul of WP:NOT, particularly that WP is "not an indiscriminate collection of information". Croctotheface (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete given lack of significant coverage by reliable sources that establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). It has not been established that any of the Twin Galaxies rankings represent significant recognized awards, his role within King of Kong is overstated and appears to be an argument for notability through relation, and the Boston Globe piece makes one passing reference to Kuh that has been grossly exaggerated in earlier remarks. Guys, don't derail this AfD with confused discussion of what 'significant coverage' means; WP:N clearly lays out what is intended as a guide: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." D. Brodale (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • keep has multiple reliable sources and the large number of records would be enough significance by itself anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. He plays video games all day? Get a job ... Not notable beyond his own micro-world. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2008 (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.