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. 1ne 07:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prior nomination was closed as "speedy keep" without an explanation and without sufficient discussion. As it stands, collectable card game players should rarely be considered notable themselves, and amount of winning ($300,000) is not sufficiently notable either (as it does not distinguish him from any successful, but non-notable, member of another profession). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for deletion, based on the same rationale:

• Jon Finkel (see prior nomination.)

• Strong Keep on both. Kai Budde is a winner of a MTG World Championship, is notable enough that he is the top-rated Pro player in the game. Jon Finkel is also a World Championship winner, and No. 2 behind Kai Budde in ratings. MTG may be a new game, and perhaps not quite as big as poker or chess, but it's still a significant business, and as such, the top players deserve an article. And that's not even getting into the issues behind the proposal. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for both. While MTG may not be as popular as other card games, the top players therein remain well known with a relatively large following of individuals. Xiliquiern 01:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both. They've won some Magic: The Gathering tournaments? How does that make them notable? I'm sorry, but I think you need to do something besides win some CCG tournaments to be notable. TJ Spyke 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the world championship. Maybe WP:BIO can shed some light if you're unclear what makes them notable. WilyD 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd recommend contacting the closing admin or taking this to WP:DRV if you have a problem with the outcome of the previous AFD. Yomangani^talk 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded - bad faith nomination, speedy close DRV is how you contest AfD results, not via immediately doing another AfD. AfDs done soon after eachother without being because of DRV are strongly frowned upon. LinaMishima 03:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DRV is usually used for reviewing deletions. Since this article was not deleted, DRV is not particularly appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Nlu here. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked, WP:DRV was the place to contest all AfD discussions, both deletes and keeps. It doesn't really matter, though. Oh, and keep, top five professional sportspeople are notable (with "sports" inclusing things like chess, go, etc.) Kusma (討論) 08:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not confuse "notable" with being a "household name". According to WP:BIO, Kai Budde is notable as an athlete. The spirit of the term applies here, and athletes gain notability within there own sport, not across sports. It isn't the amount of money Kai won, it's that no one has earned more doing the same thing. Jay32183 01:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That presumes that Magic can be considered a sport. Do we want to really add articles for top bass fishers, top players at horseshoes (whatever the term would be for them), and top chickendancers? (And each of those is covered on TV, whereas Magic is not.) --Nlu (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, M:TG world championships were broadcast on ESPN2 at one point. It didn't do that well, mainly because it's not exciting to watch (like poker), but unlike poker, most people don't know the rules. Still, it happened. Mangojuice^talk 05:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable bass fishers: Michael Iaconelli, Luke Clausen, Roland Martin, etc. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep both. Jon Finkel is the subject of a book published by Random House: I will admit, his article needs to be refocused, since he is now much more well-known for his poker accomplishments than his M:TG ones. And while we're at it, there's no new reason here (or in the speedy kept debate) for deletion other than notability, which was adequately settled in the first debate. Kai Budde meets the WP:BIO criteria. There are plenty of sources out there on him; see this for instance, which is a published book, that describes Kai as "the best player in the world as of this writing." Lots of columns published on the Wizards site too. If it needs better sourcing, it should be fixed, not deleted. Let me add: under consideration, I don't think MTG or other CCG (or, really, any non-mainstream sport) competitors should automatically become notable for being in a professional league: I wouldn't think that EVERY professional tournament player would deserve an article. However, both Finkel and Budde could be considered "other professionals whose work is widely recognized and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record in their field", and both have been the subject of multiple MTG-related columns, and most importantly, WP:BIO is not intended to be exclusionary. Mangojuice^talk 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As this article stands, it does not meet the criteria at WP:BIO and badly needs sourcing. Sources should be included in the article, not the AfD debate. It takes a very broad interpretation to fit these subjects under the category of "athlete." The first bullet was not intended for participants in a leisure activity; it would require another broad interpretation, this time of "field." It does bring into question the inclusion of articles on poker players, champion backgammon players, chess grandmssters, and any other indoor game of skill; and Nlu does bring up a good point of where we draw the line at inclusion of champions of a particular activity. WP:BIO draws a fine line, and I could see an argument for broadening the notability criteria to include champions of popular activities. But that debate is for the policy page. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment If a verifiable citation of a reliable third-party source can be included in the articles outside of an article by WOTC for the purpose of demonstrating the subjects are "widely recognized" as performing at the highest level, I could be persuaded to change my position on CCG players inclusion. This has to be addressed in both articles. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pointed out a book describing Kai as the best player in the world, and there's a book written about Finkel. Don't those count? Mangojuice^talk 18:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OBVIOUS - passes most reasonable use of WP:BIO (as an athlete), 40K ghits (frankly I'm surprised it's that low) et cetera. Everyone who plays an inning of OF is entitled to encyclopaedic recognition per WP:BIO - methinks if the comparison to an athlete fails the holistics of WP:BIO are pretty obvious. Both have lots of reliable, third party coverage. WilyD 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, perhaps speedily again for Finkel. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, highly successful professional player of a widely played game. —ptk✰fgs 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I stop short - but just short - of agreeing that this a bad faith nomination, but I have big problems with nom's handling of this issue. There are venues on Wikipedia to argue for the general non-notability of CCG players (although given that there are articles on world-class chess, poker, backgammon and Scrabble players, it's a crock), but an ambush AfD of a World Champion in a professional circuit is certainly not one. And winning "only" $300,000 isn't notable? Policy forbids me to respond with the appropriate degree of incredulity, but Wikipedia has numerous articles for professional golfers with lifetime earnings lower than Budde's (Deane Beman, Tony Jacklin, Bob Shearer, Johnny Pott, Orville Moody ...). RGTraynor 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Being one of the best at any sport/game that is played international is considered notable. MTG is played across the world and is printed in numerous languages, such as, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish (see wikipedia article on MTG). - Darkchun 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to start adding articles for International Science Olympiad champions? --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might get away with that, but it is streching the principle further. MtG is a game, not a sport, sure, but it's one with a large following, professionally organised tournaments and press coverage (i.e. ESPN2) - I don't know if the OIs are comparable (after all, I've known OI competitors and I don't think any received noticable press coverage). WilyD 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to start deleting articles for Chess Olympiad? I see at least a half a dozen articles there with no claim to notablity besides being on a national team. And ISO has a few articles with players with no notablity outside of the competiton. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the comments above, very notable according to WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and per previous analogy to Scrabble, dominoes and backgammon champions in another AfD. -- Grev 05:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, reasoning for nomination is flawed: there are hundreds of articles on sportspeople who are non-notable outside their profession, including a significant number of people on this list and other lists like it. Budde also passes WP:BIO on the first bullet point in my opinion: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. Just because his "field" was a CCG doesn't make his contribution less recognized. QmunkE 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the verifiable citations of this subject being "widely recognized?" -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would imagine that he would be featured in numerous trading card game magazines, websites, forums (not quite as 'professional', but still a form of notability) and from ESPN2 when MTG championships were shown.Xiliquiern 13:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick Google search turns up over 200,000 results, of which most of the first page are Magic based news sites, then further down a more independent site: [1]. I'd say this probably also falls partly under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction - there aren't going to be many journals and the like about Budde however the reliability of sources such as the Wizards of the Coast website and [www.starcitygames.com] aren't really in doubt. QmunkE 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your inline link is really a press release from WOTC republished on that site. The problem with citations from WOTC is that they are the makers of the product and would naturally want to hype it through a large tournament. It doesn't demonstrate that the event's participants are "widely recognized." Citations of coverage of the event in Scrye or InQuest Gamer would be better evidence that the subject is widely recognized. One big problem is that the claims of notability in this AfD aren't backed up by verifiable citations in the articles. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what you're doing now is being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Are you genuinely suggesting that a former World Champion and the lifetime career earnings leader in a game's pro circuit is not notable within that field? (If so, could you tell us what within that field you do consider notable?) You could, with just as much justification, claim that the notability of many prominent scientists only stems from scientific journals and thus aren't "widely recognized." RGTraynor 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A line still has to be drawn somewhere on notability within profession -- depending on what that profession is and whether that profession is itself notable. I'm sure that there are professions for which even the most notable people within the profession can be agreed on as being not sufficiently notable overall to be included. The question is whether professional Magic-playing is such a profession. I think it is. --Nlu (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the line is drawn here, then we might as well delete all the players of any CCG, as well as a good chunk of Scrabble, dominoes, and other "traditional" game champions. As stated, Kai is the winningest player of the game ever. He will get in the game's Hall of Fame on the first ballot (he's not eligible yet), and the only other player of the game that even comes close to him in notability is Jon Finkel. To be less argumentative, my line is drawn at Hall of Fame members, World Champions, and players who are notable in other fields (like David Williams). -- Grev 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They still have to meet the criteria of being "widely recognized." Promotion by WOTC doesn't cut it as a WP:RS. This is because coverage by WOTC is inherently unobjective; they want these people to seem notable. This isn't new; it's the same standard we apply for NCAA athletes. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two things: (1) WOTC employs semi-independent columnists. Sure, they write about and promote MTG, but I see no reason to doubt their authority when they describe someone as a prominent player. (2) I'd stop pushing the point about WOTC and independence. You've made your point, clearly and cogently. The best thing now is to see if people end up agreeing or disagreeing with it. Mangojuice^talk 19:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malber: DALLAS (October 10, 2005) --- An exclusive interview with World Champion Kai Budde highlights the newest edition of Beckett Magic The Gathering #3 which will hit newsstands and subscribers later this month. If a magazine produced by Beckett isn't notable and independent enough for you, tell me what will. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sugarpinet/c 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on both. MTG's most well-known competitive players are just as notable as most pro-sports players or, for that matter, pop-culture writers. Anyone who cares about CCGs should have a use for this article. However, the article on Kai Budde may need to be better-Wikified.Blue Crest 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep* With a bit of incredulity that it's up for AfD SirFozzie 23:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep* For all the resons above and flabbergasted it's even here on AfD CodyM 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per Darkchun. Markovich292 23:03, 23 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.