Deletion of Kiyoshi Shiina (2nd nomination)

Comment: I don't think he meets the notability standards listed for martial artists and I also don't think he quite meets the coverage requirements of , but I'm a new editor (but long time user) and am not that sure of the rules. I thought I'd try to test my knowledge at some contentious debates.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/75.150.214.113|75.150.214.113
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Remember  is a guide not law.  IP opinions are their beliefs and should be held as being valid.  He would be notable according to  and .   5 decades of coverage in magazines in the 1960's to 2010's from the NY Times, USJF Magazine, Daily News, Black Belt Magazine, Hartford Courier, The Oswegian, etc shows notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MANOTE||WP:ANYBIO||WP:SPORTCRIT)

Comment: I remember the first discussion. I don't see major new sources that show notability and I don't see any additional achievements that add to his resume. Because every organization has their own rank hierarchy, rank has never been considered a valid indicator of martial arts notability here at WP. No argument that there are a number of passing mentions, but WP requires significant coverage. Bottom line: doesn't meet  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:MANOTE)

Comment: just to draw attention that the two named accounts who voted keep last time got specifically asked to come an comment here  (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mandsford&diff=prev&oldid=639130353 this and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=prev&oldid=639130301 this) this seems to be a otestacking problem"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion", "In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate." - 100% of the name account keep voters who hadn't previously voted here seems likely undue. --Special:Contributions/86.2.216.5|86.2.216.5
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)