Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was No consensus (again). Articles that don't improve after two no consensus AfDs can be re-AfDed a third time, and I hope with a different result. I don't want to have a constant train of no consensus AfDs on an article that doesn't improve. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy St. Clair

Since this article survived an AfD which resulted in no consensus, no substantial additional information showing notability of the subject has been added, and this article has been subject of edit wars, vandalism, &c., all of which should be thoroughly unnecessary because the subject is simply not notable. Strong delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If edit wars were a criteria for deletion there would be precious few articles. Notable per WP:BIO bullet points 4 and 9. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, placed fourth in a major world championship, that's enough for me. Edit wars are not a valid reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, edit wars are not a valid reason to delete per se, but this is a situation where the pettiness demonstrate by both pro-St. Clair and anti-St. Clair editors show just how non-notable he is -- neither side is able to come up with anything that actually show any more notability than being good at a card game of limited popularity. Effectively, the edit war was at the level of "Bob pulled off Mark's pants!" "No, he didn't!" "Yes, he did!" And, in my opinion, this strongly shows a lack of notability. If the subject is notable, then there will be more notable things to edit war about. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Much of the revisions are not about whether or not he was banned for cheating, it's about how we want to portray it. My revisions were removing uncited original research. St. Clair has a reputation in the tournament scene for Yu-Gi-Oh and Vs. System that is on par with Magic:The Gathering's Mike Long. His article is bound to attract people who feel they have a score to settle. This is no reason to delete the article, but why it is watch to insure that it fairly represents the subject with neutrality. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, as the suspension has been finalized, and per Malber's point. Mike Long : Magic :: Roy St. Clair : Yu-Gi-Oh :: Phil Mondiello : Pokemon. Had Wikipedia been around during Pokemon's peak, I'm absolutely sure Phil would have a page chock full of info on that. I think Roy's page should stay here as I would be willing to assume he'll be going into Magic if he plans on continuing any card games competitively, with the same end result (a suspension for cheating.) --MewtwoStruckBack 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete yugioh championship? -- Drini 04:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Drini. Naconkantari 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Here we have a guy who's placed fourth in a fairly large tournament for a fairly notable card game franchise. The game warrants an article. The tournaments, even, in a large article, Yu-Gi-Oh! tournaments, or somesuch, warrant an article. The top participants and notable attendees of said tournaments should be mentioned in aforementioned tournament article. However, they do not warrant articles on their own if the sole claim to significance is placing fourth in one of these tournaments. Has had no significance or influence beyond the closely-devoted Yu-Gi-Oh! community, and therefore does not warrant an encyclopedia entry of his own. He does, however, warrant mention in a larger article on these tournaments, which would be encyclopedic, and to me, at least, quite interesting, especially if it contains the sort of details like the bribery and cheating scandals included here. So, essentially, we have encyclopedic information not being presented in an encyclopedic way—It's spread too thin, is all. If no one is willing to create said article, however, this will have to be deleted.-Sean Black 04:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I am not convinced of notability just yet. I'd like to see his name appear somewhere other than a blog, forum, or upperdeck site. If I think its a reputable site, I'd consider changing my vote. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. No Guru 03:18, 19 May 2006 (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.