Talk:Brian Kuh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 3, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

[edit] Hard to imagine how a person with 16 world records doesn't deserve a wikipedia article

Not to mention an extensive role in a major motion picture

I don't believe that these records are themselves notable for an encyclopedia article. It may be that my position does not gather a consensus, and this article is retained. If it is, it needs a total rewrite, away from phrases like "pawn of Billy Mitchell". Croctotheface (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please add your commentary to the discussion. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes --~~~~. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuh has far more than the necessary two references

And a total re-write, maybe some rewording and additional citation, but why the extreme reaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.34.128 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

First, "the necessary two references" is not any kind of policy. The standard is "significant coverage," and I don't see a single major publication that has even a single article about this person. Twingalaxies.com, in my view, doesn't cut it or even come close. To the idea of a rewrite, the article, as a whole, is not well-written. In addition to problems with the prose, there are serious problems with attributing sinister motives to him and otherwise violating WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I think that this article could pretty much mention: his life before video gaming, the records he's set, and his appearance in the film. The rest of it is basically all commentary, which is not appropriate for this wiki. Croctotheface (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the Boston Globe? http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2007/08/19/bizarro_world/ And TG is used by The Guiness Book of World Records as a reliable source, maybe you've heard of them. Sampackgregory (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your snide tone does not contribute to the discussion. That article is not about Brian Kuh; it mentions his name, unless I missed something, once. That goes to verifiability, not notability. Croctotheface (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

16 world records on the other hand? C'mon. Why the agenda to get rid of the page? Sampackgregory (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have thousands of edits here and no "agenda", and your impugning my motives with that kind of attack also does not enhance the discussion here. I have an issue with an article like this where somebody who is, as far as I can see, not the subject of a multiple mainstream news articles, let alone something really significant like a book, receives better coverage here than any other site that is equally prestigious. If the next best coverage is at Twin Galaxies, which is a niche site for video game records, then I think we have a notability problem. Croctotheface (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i agree but still

fuck fuck... vandalism