Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Storms

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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Storms

This is a non-notable, self-promotional bio (surely we're not giving every Guinness record-holder his own page). The trivia that he enjoys Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is especially compelling, but ultimately not enough to show notability, methinks. JDoorjam 15:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This was speedied as an A7, despite him being a world record holder. That's a huge assertion of notability. So I've restored it and reopened this debate. -Splashtalk 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe not all record-holders deserve their own page (gherkin-eating probably wouldn't), but singing is reasonably respectable. Andjam 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andjam. -- DS1953 talk 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What, exactly, does "respectable" mean? JDoorjam 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That it is not cruftish. Inclusion of this record would not harm the reputation of wikipedia. Andjam 23:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was disappointed to see this page deleted also. If it was just self-promotional, it would have probably been on an island, but there were actually several other Wikipedia articles linking to it before it was deleted. 68.97.35.20 21:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User has six contributions, all of which went to restoring this article. JDoorjam 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There are 40,000 records in the Guinness Book of World Records. Which ones are "notable" and which ones aren't? Surely we're not going to list them all. With that said, should the records that Guinness thinks are worth mentioning be used as a resource? GuinnessWorldRecords.com does not even mention the category. JDoorjam 23:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • keep I vote 'keep' because singing the lowest ever recorded note for a human is similar to records for being tallest or most massive, but different from records such as making the largest pancake or longest continuous juggling, because it is directly related to a single physical characteristic shared by all normally functioning humans. If Wikipedia wants to make a distinction as to which record holders are worth including, this seems like a good option. (I wrote a large part of the text for the Acappella (group) article, but I had no idea who Tim Storms was before I clicked the link to his name because I am not a fan of his era of the group, and thus do not feel that I am biased because of it). Folding Chair 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Question As Tim Storms' record is mentioned at vocal range, and there is a page for List of world records, is this separate article warranted? I agree that there's merit to recording the record and the record-holder, but when everything there is to say can be presented as:
Lowest voice: Tim Storms (formerly of singing ensemble Acappella)
is a separate page appropriate? Incidentally, I'd say your having written part of the Acappella article doesn't affect at all the merit of your argument -- Your argument doesn't even mention the group, so I don't see how it could at all be biased by it -- though hey, cheers to full disclosure. . JDoorjam 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't keep This is an excellent point. I withdraw my vote for keep. If Tim Storms' name can be linked to the page for Guinness world records on the Acappella page and anywhere else he is listed, then I do not think he warrants his own article.Folding Chair 01:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's probably no such thing as a probationary keep, but I think it should be kept for the time being. It seems like if months later there is no major changes to the article, then it should be deleted. I think one of the criteria for an article is that it has to have the potential to become more than a stub, and that's something that probably can't be determined right now. Beisnj 06:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article is eight months old; the only changes since first being written (besides stubbing and categorization) is the addition, and removal, of information regarding Mr. Storms' affinity for donuts. JDoorjam 16:50, 19 January 2006 (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.