Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Long

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Long

Non-notable collectible card player. Does not meed criteria at WP:BIO. Violates WP:BLP due to not being sourced. Delete -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Again, there are plenty of sources out there on him (see [1] for some hits in books, and this is pretty authorative. Very well-known in MTG circles. There is no reason to delete this: WP:BIO is met, and the article DOES follow WP:BLP enough to be kept, since all negative claims are specifically sourced. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, let me point out this precedent. Mangojuice^talk 13:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't see getting banned as unsourced negative material? Also see this precendent for the notability of CCG players: Roy St. Clair. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Please review WP:POINT. That your CCG player gets deleted is no reason to attempt deleting other CCG players. Kusma (討論) 14:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict, addressed at Malber's comment) I see your WP:POINT. You didn't want Roy St. Clair deleted, but it was anyway, so you nominated several top Magic players for deletion. I'm changing my vote to speedy keep now, as it's apparent this is a bad-faith nomination. Mangojuice^talk 14:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as I see at least two criteria for which this person applies. See number 1 (widely recognized) and number 5(professional league or equivalent). There is a pro-tour level play league, and even a Hall of Fame. Mister.Manticore 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep well at least this article is kind of sourced. I'd like to see better sourcing though...--Isotope23 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep In my opinion, an article should be added to and improved, not deleted, if it is not well sourced. Unless of course there is no reputable information that can be added. That is clearly not the case here. There's plenty of info on Mike Long, even with a minimal google search, as others have pointed out. 128.36.59.175 21:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If this can be well cited, then the citations belong in the article, not just in the AFD debate. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a living person. WP:BLP applies. Uncited accusations of cheating, etc., are a clear violation of WP:BLP. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but WP:LIVING doesn't say Delete pages where there's any unsourced, negative material it says delete any unsourced, negative material. We don't nominate George W Bush for deletion every time it's changed to say he's a dictator (which is a fuckin' lot). WilyD 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for meeting WP:BIO but remove any unsourced allegations per our living persons policy. Yamaguchi先生 22:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Mike Long's suspension is a matter of record with Wizards and there are numerous articles about it, both in print, and on the web. It is certainly verifiable. Mister.Manticore 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep what Yamaguchi said.  ALKIVAR™ 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. Passes letter and spirit of WP:BIO. WilyD 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have removed a large amount of unsourced attack material from the article. I've never played M:TG, and from my perspective, the criticisms leveled against this person need to be sourced before we can include them. The three incidents which cite sources are still there. —ptk✰fgs 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possible speedy keep, per all previous keeps. Stifle (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Notable and accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.160.116.28 (talk • contribs).
• Weak Keep Article seems to pass WP:BIO. If kept, article should be cleaned up to conform to NPOV and WP:BLP. --Storkk 15:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the article is sourced now and passes or bio guideline Yuckfoo 04:39, 25 September 2006 (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.