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. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Schweizer[edit]

Delete. Non-notable American baseball writer. A Google search brings up little except for an unrelated German author with the same name. Apparent WP:COI issues too as seen on both sides of this diff. According to the latest talk page edit, the external links on the page will lead to "third party sources" but they seem to lead only to Mr. Schweizer's web content. De-prodded by Kinston eagle (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend learning how to use Google properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Also, when following links, go to the other links and then those links. It's pretty easy. You just point and click. And point and click again, etc. It isn't all that difficult. As far as the usage of Google, I wouldn't know how to help you. I am stumped on that one. Try contacting Google.com for some type of basic site user tutorial help or something of that nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

There is also a website known as yahoo.com, which has a search engine. If you haven't heard of it, try it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Delete agree with nominator - websearch however many things you click shows this person has written articles about baseball - but nothing to indicate he passes Wikipedia's criteria for notability -Hunting dog (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I nominate approximately one half (50%) of wikipedia for deletion, for the same (or similar) criteria. You guys have your work cut out for you. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Kurt Schweizer meets at least five (5) of the notability criteria. I am a good friend of his from the doctoral program. I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)

Strong keep , per above quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.69.31 (talk • contribs)
- What are these notability criteria? Black ngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability; he writes for the website of the "Fort Myers Miracle", a single A minor league baseball team whose entire roster had individual articles written about them last week. Unlike the bush league players, some of whom get a pass because of Wikipedia guidelines, writing about a minor league team is not inherently notable. Please feel free to nominate the other 1,250,000 articles described above. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JUST PICK ONE OF THOSE OTHER ONE MILLION PLUS ARTICLES. IT'S LIKE FLIPPING A COIN OR HITTING WATER WHEN FALLING OUT OF A BOAT. WHY ARE ALL OF YOU TARGETING ALL PEOPLE FT MYERS MIRACLE WHEN THERE ARE MANY PLAYERS FROM VARIOUS OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND TEAMS WHO HAVE BARELY PLAYED PAST HIGH SCHOOL WHICH WILL LIKELY BE ALLOWED TO STAY? MOST OF YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE OR NOTHNG ABOUT BASEBALL. IT IS A REAL SHAME THAT WE CAN'T GET A FEW EXPERTS TO LOOK INTO ALL OF THIS. THAT WOULD BE DOING A SERVICE TO WIKIPEDIA, INSTEAD OF A DISSERVICE, WHICH IS, FOR THE MOST PART, WHAT MOST OF YOU ARE DOING, ALL BECAUSE YOU APPARENTLY BECAME BORED WITH YOUR FANTASY LEAGUES AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. AND THE REST OF YOU WHO HAVE LIKELY NEVER EVEN HEARD OF ANY BASEBALL TEAMS, OTHER THAN THE NEW YORK YANKEES, SHOULD STICK TO YOUR VARIOUS ARTS AND HUMANITIES ENTRIES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search does indicate little notability. Also recommend that anonymous' attempts to bait actual editors, along with his "Strong keep" vote, are completely ignored. JuJube (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News brings no hits, doesn't appear to be notable.-- Darth Mike _(Talk _{• Contribs)} 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google search (for english sites) reveals nothing that discusses him at any length, but this: [1], articles taken from the wikipedia article, and mentions of a few unrelated people of the same name. A google news search reveals only one additional source that mentions him (others are in german, or clearly about unrelated person), but as with the miami new times article, the article isn't about him. The article is behind a paywall (it's FANS, MARLINS WEATHERING SWITCH TO NEW LAKES FIELD by the Miami Herald). Both articles are by Miami based newspapers, suggesting that even if he is notable in Miami, it isn't clear he's notable outside Miami. Silverfish (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability assessed (I'm a writer, photographer and baseball historian), with no reliable or third party sources. Black ngold29 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHOULD THE 5 NOTABILITY POINTS WHICH ARE PRESENT (ACADEMICS, FILMS, MUSIC, ORGANIZATIONS AND WEB CONTENT) ALL BE IGNORED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how each of those five notability sections are met? I'm not following what you're saying. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be sarcastic on this one, but I'm not sure I understand you. All five items are plainly obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not sourced. They need to be verifiable from reliable third party sources, or anybody could claim anything about anyone. Black ngold29 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just reading the list in this template? Click on the links in there - each leads to a separate section of WP:N that gives notability guidelines for articles on those types of subjects. You're probably looking for WP:BIO, the guideline for biographical articles - like this one. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What officially constitutes a "reliable" third party source? How are those sources proven to be reliable? You see what I mean? If you take this completely in the direction that you're heading, wikipedia will eventually resemble little more than the 1972 World Books on my grandmother's bookshelf. But, on the other hand, I don't know; maybe that's the way it SHOULD be. (But, is that the vision for wikipedia?) Either way, it should be evenly applied. And I think everyone is aware that it isn't. That is a major system-wide flaw. This is why there are so many critics of wikipeida. Many people feel that one may as well just get information from the general internet, where many of these third party sources are still there (for their original and main purpose, which is to share knowledge) and haven't been deleted because of some quasi-bureaucratic bulls**t. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is updating your Grandma's World books thousands of times per second, so WP will never be like that; but that's a discussion for another place. You can see which sources are "reliable" here. Black ngold29 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion" -WP

The only other thing I'm going to add (unless asked) is that, in each and every case, Wikipedia should strive to be ABOVE the general internet and NOT strive to be BELOW it (which is certainly what is happening here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.174.90 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dammit, why don't you simply mention "Kurt Schweizer" in the Fort Myers Miracle article? We got nothing against Kurt, but why do you think he needs his own separate page? Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay. I'm sure that Kurt will appreciate that you made a page in his honor and that it stayed up for awhile, and you can save it to your computer forever, but get over it. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, but why does it "need" to be deleted? Obviously, arguments can be made for either case, but what harm does it do to just let it be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.151.91 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that the Wikipedia system permits editors to limit the addition of articles; anyone has a right to propose that an article not become a permanent addition, and then any interested party may agree or disagree, after which another party makes a decision based on those arguments. Were the system not in place, then anyone could have an article about themselves on Wikipedia, including people who have not accomplished as much as Mr. Schweizer has accomplished. Following the guidelines and the procedures is the price of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dont see how that amounts to a reason in this case; however

Delete There quite simply is no encyclopedic notability shown by our usual standards,even interpreted flexibly DGG (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that all sounds reasonable. However, I know for certain that if one were to poll people who are actually IN the world of baseball and higher academics, (etc.), you would see very strong support for Kurt's page to stay. It's just a shame that the people on this page don't know that. (But, I do.) I'm not sure what else I can say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.150.111 (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have shown, subject doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards. BRMo (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Also, the argument of "there are other articles that aren't notable, too!" isn't a sufficient defense. When it comes down to it, this article still does not meet the guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 03:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Meets WP notability standard, based on the following: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network"-WP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.189 (talk • contribs) August 1, 2008

CommentWhat broadcast has he been the subject of? Silverfish (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the main subjects of a PBS film, which was produced last year. The film's running time is 90 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.170 (talk • contribs) 12:10, August 2, 2008

What was the name of the film? Silverfish (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film is "White Elephant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this thing? What is it? A one-page web site with an embedded 3-minute film? I'm confused. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see where it is a television documentary on Miami Stadium - only problem is that I never see Kurt Schweizer's name mentioned. Surely you recognize what a terrible precedent it would be if we had an article on every single person who ever appeared in a television documentary on anything. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that Kurt (and his name) are all over the thing. What kind of precedent is set by considering things to be notable only if YOU have seen them?--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. I have seen this movie on TV. Mr. Schweizer is, indeed, one of the main subjects, which clearly means he does indeed meet WP notability standards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep as per above. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep on a Hurculean Level per above. This clearly meets WP notability standards.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no independent notability shown. Mukadderat (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment about no inde. notability is obviously absurd, considering all of the above debate taken as a whole. This person has obviously performed no research on Schweizer whatsoever. I again assert that Schweizer very clearly meets WP notability standards for at least one (if not five) items. In other words, he has enough notability to go around for about 5 different people. Anyone who has taken the time to research this fact WILL very clearly find it.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ even though it wouldn't assure his notability I have researched reviews of the "White Elephant" documentary [2], which seems to be very firmly about the ex-stadium and not about Mr Schweizer. Even if he did appear in it, that doesn't mean it was about him. Merely appearing as a journalist or protagonist for a campaign does not infer any notability. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC) oops sorry just realised I voted previously - still stand by that, after following debate and additional research - Hunting dog (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (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.