Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Muller


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris Muller

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced biography of an aviator of questionable notability. A search turns up only two things: he did run a business, and he is dead. All the sources seem to be limited to passing mentions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of Chris Mullers to filter through, but can't find much on this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unavailable for preview, but searching in Google Books indicates that he held some form of Guiness Record. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - If that is the same Chris Muller (reasonably likely) then would the fact that holding one "world's record, as recorded by Guiness" be enough for notability? If backed with other converage, sure, but I'm not sure that a passing mention in The Guiness World Book of Records is enough by itself.  I haven't run across that issue before, but my gut says no.  Would be happy to hear from someone with more experience with single mentions in Guiness.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - I'd say it is very likely the same Chris Muller. But absent other coverage, I'm not sure that is sufficient for notability, but I'm also not sure that it is insufficient either.  Setting such a record would seem to likely generate some coverage, perhaps in paragliding specialty magazines.  However, I have been unable to find any indication yet that it has received any such coverage.  So for now, I remain neutral. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply What makes me doubt that simple inclusion won't past muster without significant coverage is wp:stats, plus it is only a passing mention, not significant. Keep in mind, they have "world's records" for all kinds of crazy stuff that is not inherently notable.  I would imagine that much of those don't get coverage, although I agree that in this case, you would *think* it would in related mags and at least the fluff section of a couple of newspapers.  The name is common enough (although Google wants to suggest alternate spellings) so it does take some weeding out.  Unfortunately, I'm finding only weeds. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - After some more digging, it seems that holding the record has not generated coverage, so rather than neutral, I recommend deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (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.