jorge gracie the article was deleted via a vote this isn't a consensus but rather a small majority i have seen quite often when a vote did not result in deletion but the talk of no consensus reached additionally many individuals in the articles for deletion noted jorge via mmanote rather than manote at worst i would like to have this article userfied thank you rough consensus on wikipedia is about balancing arguments against consensus not policy so on one hand we had keep votes arguing against an inherent notability that didn't have a policy background and a delete side that was arguing that the subject did not meet the gng inclusion guideline because the sources were inadequate the sources brought up in the discussion did not seem to meet the gng so i was left with policy based arguments to delete and non policy based arguments to keep that gives a rough consensus to delete i'm always happy to userfy where would you like it humbug fully disclosing my biases toward keep on this issue i agree with that you made an erroneous decision on this one i'm no admin but the debate appears fully in the midst of no consensus which as you well know in deletion discussions normally results in the article page image or other content being kept i find it confusing that you would say that the keep votes didn't have a specific policy foundation in mind when i specifically and intentionally addressed wp basic as the guildeline particularly because this was a bio and then listed a recently published book black belt magazine and least but not irreverently so the bjj heroes biography as sources which achieve this guideline if for whatever reason you find the more prime wp gng to be the true standard of retention for this article well i see no reason why it does not equivalently square with nor meet the standards set forth in wp basic i say this in due respect sir i'm a bit confused basic is a simplification of the gng please can you explain which sources are suitable to determine notability in this case thanks humbug good sir i'm a bit flummoxed as to what it is about the glut of sources that isn't particularly suitable for you is it the significant coverage or some other such sub section of the gng specifically i believe that this source would have more than met that i mention wp basic specifically because this is was a biography and basic pertain to biographies specifically most critically is the section if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial as many of these sources admittedly were not then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability which the at least dozen or so sources did in a non trivial manner now i know i'm not a administrator and i don't have the permissions nor presumably knowledge to adjudicate these affairs but i do casually work on more than enough bios to know that when the majority of all biographies take this as an example are far less cited and left kept or otherwise unmolested clearly there is a double standard in effect here i have reviewed the sources have you read the guideline on reliable sourcing the only reliable source in the deleted article was the book reference and that was roughly words that and fan sites does not a wikipedia biography make also see other stuff exists humbug you can userfy it over here i will update it and improve it buddy lee you can perform fixes to it as well make it a complete article i would certainly contribute my efforts if this is made so i would like to note that under i did make further ed