Talk:Brian Kuh

message: "[...]Is not liked by females because of his looks"? I'm not sure about this, but is this really necessary to have in the article? This sounds more like someone has vandalized his article. Have anyone read something similar in any other article? I doubt it.
--It was obviously vandalism. Any such defamatory or unreferenced material should be removed at once. Danski14(talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brian is not liked in the gaming community due to his excessive flamboyance and is not liked by females because of his looks."

message: 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)
replies: text: Please add your commentary to the discussion. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes --~~~~. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Referring to "King of Kong" as a "major motion picture" is only diluting the phrase "major motion picture" more than it already is.  I don't know what the qualifications are to be considered a "major motion picture" but I'm pretty sure it's not a whoppin' 5-theater release that expanded to a mighty 39, and taking in less than a million bucks at the box office.  Kuh simply is NOT notable.  71.193.180.96 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard to imagine how a person with 16 world records doesn't deserve a wikipedia article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kuh has far more than the necessary two references 

message: Simply being a Twin Galaxies video game world record holder is not sufficient enough for his inclusion in Wikipedia unless actual notability can be established - in other words, where is the mainstream press coverage of this person? From what I have been able to ascertain, aside from his association with Twin Galaxies (and he is not a particularly remarkable player even by their standards), there is literally nothing notable about this individual. Laval (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article definently needs more expansion and more references. His notability is certainly questionable.. I am in favor of keeping the article, though. Danski14(talk) 20:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that Kuh lacks notability to merit an article. The current version of the article reads almost like a poorly sourced forum post. It's all pretty much opinions of the guy. And from what people are saying, the records he "claims" to have broken are not even notable in and of themselves. This is a very bad article filled with misinformation. I think we should remove it. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability