Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osamu Fujita


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Osamu Fujita

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:49, 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 Fujita 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) 03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Those prior discussions were all from September 2006 absent one from November 2005 and one was closed on a bad-faith nomination. Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination) was also in 2006 and has remained deleted for close to a decade. It's been a decade and consensus can change. Here, I think that there must be more evidence of notability beyond what the group's local consensus has determined. In a decade, there's been literally nothing on any of those pages more than permanent stubs about a 2-3 year period of their lives based entirely on primary sources with no independence to the subject matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as still questionable for notably better, the current article is simply not convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 16 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.