Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hayne


 * 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. Same case as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).  Sandstein  19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Hayne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on Brian Selden, Tommi Hovi, Darwin Kastle, Kai Budde, Mike Long, and Jon Finkel, twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis, WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Hayne meets. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete at best, this is still questionable for anything notably better, there's nothing to suggest this article can be amply better shown of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete; no evidence for any substantial coverage. Two of the three sources give only a few stats, and the other one barely mentions him; substantial coverage is not a paragraph that mentions your name five times.  Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2016 (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.