Deletion of Kai Budde (2nd nomination)

Comment: As this article stands, it does not meet the criteria at  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.  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: 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 List of current MLS players|this list and other lists like it. Budde also passes  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Do not confuse "notable" with being a "household name". According to , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: per WP:OBVIOUS - passes most reasonable use of  (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  - methinks if the comparison to an athlete fails the ''holistics'' of  are pretty obvious.  Both have lots of reliable, third party coverage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: I'd recommend contacting the closing admin or taking this to  if you have a problem with the outcome of the previous AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: per the comments above, very notable according to  guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)