The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 00:43, 5 August 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)
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)
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
The film is "White Elephant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 ( talk) 05:18, 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
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 ( talk • contribs)
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
The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 00:43, 5 August 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)
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)
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
The film is "White Elephant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 ( talk) 05:18, 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
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 ( talk • contribs)
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