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 Keep. Molerat 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Kastle[edit]

Non-notable collectible card player. Article does not include references to substantiate notability beyond realm of Magic:The Gathering. Unsuitable for inclusion per WP:BLP of private persons. Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep; bad faith nom in retaliation for Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair. This article is only a stub, but could be much more; see [1] for a profile of Darwin; BLP doesn't seem to be a critical problem, as there's nothing especially negative in the article. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: I concur that this is a bad faith nomination; come to that, the nom messaged me wondering if I wanted to buy into this discussion based on my previous involvement in the 3rd St. Clair AfD, in which I strongly argued for the subject's notability. I can't see myself inviting into my own AfD debate someone I knew for a fact would oppose it. Ravenswing 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep; having weighed up the possible bad faith of the nom and the precedent set by the recent AfDs of other MtG players versus a nagging thought i have about collectible card players being non-notable outside of their clique. Onebravemonkey 15:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep due to the problems with the proposal. If nothing else, bundling all 5 or so of the proposals should have been done. FrozenPurpleCube 15:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the rules about athletes applies here in spirit. He's in the Magic: The Gathering Hall of Fame, you can't get more notable than Hall of Famer. Jay32183 18:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think Speedy Keep is valid here... Article has one huge problem: it is completely unsourced, making it apparent original research.--Isotope23 20:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the official hall of fame profile as a reference, it verifies the basic information and notability. Jay32183 20:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any sources outside of ones published by WOTC? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would there need to be? If there was an argument about the verifiability of a professional hockey player's information, NHL.com would be all the sourcing required. Is there some reason why the company that produces this game is an unreliable source for information about the game? Ravenswing 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because professional athletes can be verified outside of websites or publications by their particular sport. You don't need to go to MLB.com to get information about Curt Schilling. You could go to Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, Baseball Today, The Boston Globe, The New York Times, etc. A reference in Scrye or Inquest would be more acceptable as a notable WP:RS than an article at WOTC. -- Malber (talk •

contribs) 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the MTG community is smaller and somewhat more insular than many other sports doesn't mean it's notable members are not themselves notable. If nothing else, I would consider membership in the official Hall of Fame sufficient on its own. It'd be one thing if Magic were only a year or two old, but it's been around over a decade, so it has a solid foundation behind it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • But if the community is so insular that its top players aren't recognized in mainstream press, then how can you argue for its notability on WP:BIO points #1 and #5? -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not so insular that it doesn't exist to the outside world. Otherwise they wouldn't have gotten on ESPN. FrozenPurpleCube 19:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Professional collectible card players who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so are notable. Yamaguchi先生 21:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In the Hall of fame for players of the game, so he's inherently notable. And for the record, had I actually seen the AfD immediately, I probably would've voted Keep for Roy St. Clair, too. -- Grev 23:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Kai Budde and Jon Finkel deletion discussions. Irongargoyle 23:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• FUCK he's a keep cause he's in the hall of fame... but can we purge it with flame because its pokecruft??!??! Can't come up with enough motivation to go either way really. I guess weak keep  ALKIVAR™ 01:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BIO - as well, WP:BLP isn't relevent here - it's only says delete potentially libelous material, not articles Read it here! WilyD 13:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, successful professional player of a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seem notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.