Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th 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 was delete . Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roy St. Clair

This is a fourth nomination of a collectable card game player who has been suspended and who has no notability otherwise. The first and second discussions ended up in "no consensus." After a couple people who had been strong "keep" proponents then expressed opinion that they'd changed their minds and decided that St. Clair was not notable, I made a third nomination, which was cut short on account that it was too soon of a reproposal. Now we have threat of a new edit war erupting over an insufficiently notable individual, and the edit warring parties have not added any new indications of his notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep based on same criteria as previous AfDs. Lack of {{attention}} is not a reason for deletion. We don't delete stubs after a specific yet arbitrary period of time. Edit warring can be prevented by {{sprotect}}ing the article. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Lack of attention is not a reason for deletion, but the lack of notability is. In the past, there has never been any convincing case made of St. Clair's notability, and the keep voters were encouraged to show his notability. This has not happened. --Nlu (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would question whether Yuh-Gi-Oh players are notable under any circumstances. Where are the multiple non-trivial references from reliable secondary sources? Guy 13:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's obvious that some pro-CCG players (i.e. Kai Budde) are inherently worthy of articles - I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line, but it is the case that Yu-Gi-Oh was the best selling CCG about for some non-trivial period of time. WilyD 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If Budde is worthy, isn't also Mike Long? There are a lot of similarities between Long and St. Clair. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I would imagine so - I was just going for an example of CCG players who are indisputably notable and Budde was the first to pop into my mind. WilyD 21:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but... - I checked the old previous AfD's, and it's true nobody ever showed there was much coverage of his placing 5th in the Yu-Gi-Oh World Championship. Nor was there significant coverage (outside, perhaps, of obscure online hobbyist press) of his other achievements apart from that championship. Now, here's where my but comes in. English-speaking media doesn't really cover Yu-Gi-Oh tournaments, but perhaps it's different in Japan. In the unlikely event that his 5th place showing got substantial mainstream press coverage in Japan, I'd change my vote. My Alt Account 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If he is notable in the Japanese-speaking world but not in the English-speaking world, wouldn't that make him only an appropriate subject for Japanese Wikipedia? --Nlu (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. The bigger issue is that even if the coverage exists, we're unlikely to find it, and if someone does, the rest of us won't be able to evaluate it... My Alt Account 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. The english language encyclopaedia is written in english, but we're busting our chops to ensure coverage isn't biased towards english language importance, see WP:BIAS WilyD 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for want of a better fit, I'm going to class him as an athlete per WP:BIO, note he then passes WP:BIO per competed at the highest level in a mainly amateur sport and thus argue for a keep - I'm not too attached to it, but it seemed to best way to assess his "notability", whatever that is. WilyD 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if Street Fighter players are notable, then so are Yu-Gi-Oh players. Danny Lilithborne 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps speedily as yet another renomination. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Those prior nominations did not result in "keep"; they just didn't get a consensus to delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Nothing at google news. 116 Unique Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 21:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Show me the notable mentions in any media (Japanese or English) that was not produced by someone involved with the TCG company, and it's a keep. Barring that, it's a delete. Surely, TCG competitions are *not* sports. --Kunzite 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The Street Fighter example is not good at all (I believe THAT should be delete also). Not to mention, just tell me, how many people in this world know him?? Not many. Not to mention, numerous Magic players are more famous then him, yet most of those people don't even get an article, so, why should he gets one??--Ion 02:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is more like "self-advertisment" than a bio for a person Baron 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no way that this person is an "athlete", even if he is, best showing of 5th place is hardly encyclopedic. If he had placed fifth in an election, there'd be no contest of the encyclopedic value. At least this article is shorter than that for "Lutheran". Agent 86 00:33, 15 September 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.