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 redirect to Katana ZERO. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Stander[edit]

Justin Stander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is largely inherited from Katana ZERO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: can you, MrsSnoozyTurtle, please explain how this article does not meet WP:AUTHOR per points 3 and 4, in your view? Because to me it's obvious that it does, and simply saying it does not meet WP:NBIO without any further explanation seems like a nonargument and a waste of everybody's time. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Might qualify for #3 but likely fails #4. Even then, the WP:AUTHOR section notes that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." – "likely" meaning that this is an indicator, not proof, of notability. Notability still needs to be established via the usual guidelines. IceWelder [✉] 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Point #4: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention". You need to give "Katana Zero" one more Google if you think this is a "fail". 101.50.250.88 (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, though, that no argument for deletion has been put forward by the nominator. That Stander's notability is "largely inherited" from his most popular game has nothing to do with meeting/failing WP:NBIO (quite the opposite actually - if anything it seems like an argument for keeping the article, noting that he IS indeed notable). 101.50.250.88 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Mr/Mrs IP. The reasoning is that meeting notability requirements independently of the existing article on Katana Zero requires coverage of the subject that does not relate to this game. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's incorrect, notability can explicitly be inherited per WP:AUTHOR, a policy I've already presented to you once. Have a look at WP:INHERIT as well. I'll quote: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". "Creative professions" in this text is a link leading to WP:AUTHOR. You're misunderstanding/misstating what the policy is and are yet to provide a policy-based reason for the nomination. I suggest this vote is brought to a close. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  INHERIT is an essay (not policy) on how to handle claims of inherited notability (which are usually bogus). AUTHOR is the guideline it references, and that only discusses the likelihood of notability as pointed out above; no guarantees. Please make an argument how WP:GNG is met. IceWelder [✉] 06:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't seem to understand WP:GNG and especially not WP:SNG. The only person here who has provided any relevant commentary on this article's notability is me. If you're actually interested in finding out whether Justin Stander meets your own idiosynchratic ideas of notability, look it up and make up your mind and stop wasting other's time. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's quite a bold claim from an IP account that apparently you are the only person out of four who properly understands the WP:GNG policy! Also, please read WP:5P4 and desist with the hostile attitude towards other volunteers here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Out of four? Three editors have commented here, you, IceWelder, and myself. You yourself appear to be a junior editor from the haphazard manner this AfD was listed. IceWelder certainly isn't, but is it really a "bold claim" to say another editor is misunderstanding policy? Furthermore, is stating that it's a "bold claim" in anyway really relevant to the discussion? If you really do believe I've been uncivil, please read WP:UNCIVIL and consider focusing on the discussion by addressing the arguments I've made which you are yet to respond to, instead of basically only presenting the argument that I must clearly be wrong because I'm "using a IP account". 101.50.250.88 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or redirect to Katana ZERO. There just isn't more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in most of the sources. I do appreciate that this short article didn't try to pad it out, and the verifiable information here could be a welcome addition to the article about the game in question. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is demonstrably false. 5 out of 6 references on that page are obviously not WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. I will list them here: [1][2][3][4][5] 101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. All of that coverage is in the context of Katana Zero. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Katana ZERO.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Worth noting that while Katana ZERO (as seemingly acknownleged by both sides of the discussion above) is the work Stander is best known for, is also his most recent one. Half of their work from the last decade wouldn't probably be suited for their own pages due to having little to no notability and/or relevancy outside the competitions which they had been designed for. As such, it would be beneficial to relaborate the article to better acomodate those smaller games as an alternative to deletion. Furthermore, despite being presumptively indirectly responsible for the resulting present version of Katana ZERO, those aren't directly tied within to justify including them elsewhere if not in their author's own article, given the fact said article didn't exist beforehand, nor would be enough to justify it's notability alone in first place. I would be willing to elaborate further in this topic (and thus contribute to the article itself) if this solution could indeed be seen by someone else (preferably by someone more aknowledgeable with AfD in this regard) as useful for adressing the current issue given the nature of the situation. 2804:7F7:580:DE8C:2DC0:C3B0:9EF4:8C2A (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be worthwhile. Feel free to flesh it out. WP:BEBOLD101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a "Ludography" table so there's something for you to work with. 101.50.250.88 (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2021 (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.