Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Little coverage outside primary sources Prisencolin (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator, seems to have more coverage than I could initially find. Giving some WP:POTENTIAL for the mean time.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong keep, if not speedy. Should pass WP:GNG: 30k+ google hits even after excluding primary event coverage website; quick perusal of results reveals many interviews on third party sites and by third parties on youtube, mention in a book, etc. Besides, should certainly pass WP:BIO - member of Hall of Fame and only one player in history has more Pro Tour Top 8s. -- Sesame ball Talk 07:09, 10 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 da Rosa meets. Given that he is arguably the third most successful MTG player ever, I have to question whether the nominator completed a proper WP:BEFORE check. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:57, 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) 03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's been a decade since any of those "overwhelming" arguments were made and none of those pages have improved past minor stubs about a 2-3 year period of their lives based entirely on a non-independent primary source. The local consensus hasn't been evaluated in many years either and youtube mentions combined with a passing mention in a single book are not sufficient to pass GNG. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain about this but if I'm the only hold-out, I'll withdraw my deletion !vote. Seems like there's some possible more mentions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - Even clicking on the "find sources" links above gives multiple sources (e.g.,, , etc.). Even a standard google search reveals and  on the first page. Also note article subject is Brazilian, so will likely find many additional Portuguese language sources (e.g., ). Hard for me to WP:AGF in these cases, to be honest. -- Sesame ball Talk 18:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to tell about the Portuguese sources, but it seems like most of the sources, make just a passing mention of Paulo Vitor Damo da Rosa. this source, this source, and this source might make the cut, so I'll consider withdrawing this nom--Prisencolin (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - per the rules, you won't be able to withdraw unless strikes his !vote.  " Pepper "  @ 01:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:12, 18 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.