Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Krause


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Krause

 * – ( View AfD View log )

He and his brother, also a martial arts instructor, have virtually the same articles, both claiming to be "an undefeated European champion" with a suspicious lack of detail. They're mentioned in a newspaper article (and possibly in a second one I can't access), but I don't see much notability here. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it makes the same claims:


 * Strong Delete - No proper references were given to support for the person. -- C h i n n Z      ( talk &#124;  Contrib ) 09:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable person. Tinton5 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't get how a martial arts instructor can be notable (unless they participated in a professional sporting event or coached a notable team or something). No reliable sources either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both There are no claims of notability that are supported by any reliable sources. Jakejr (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both unless a reliable source can be found for the European championship claims. Studying under H. H. Choi and K. H. Rhee does not, in itself, support notability; notability is not inherited. Janggeom (talk) 13:18, 30 December 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.

Since there is in fact nowhere to comment, and no 'talk' page for this matter, I am placing my own comments here. Firstly, the article had three references - the main one being IMDB. The other two references were from a Herald Newspapers publication. Between the 3 sources, all matters stated in the article were verified. The brohers were in fact both european champions at the same time, at different weight groups. For the twits posting about the dubiety of that, it only confirms what I have feared for some time about wikipedia - the loonies are now running the asylum. I do not know these guys personally, but read an article about them and believed that they could not possibly be any worse than some of the trash I have seen on wikipedia - I don't have much time to contribute myself these days and I am less inclined to contribute on a site where the idiotic comments made on this matter simply beggar belief - wikipedia appears to be getting hijacked dmoz style. If any of those who commented here actually bothered to check the 'unreliable' sources used, they would have been able to verify the claims made from those same sources. IMDB is now apparently an ureliable source. There were in fact 3 references which I found online from Herald Scotland - Herald Scotland is published by Newsquest Group in the UK. Newspaper sources are now also apparently unreliable sources of information. These new and unannounced changes in wikipedia's policies are what caused my confusion in publishing two articles which I would not have published had I been aware of these policy changes. Thank god I am too busy to be bothered with the moronic stuff that now takes place on wikipedia.Chrissyboi (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)