Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Esports/afd

2016 2008

2005

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 of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Kings

non-notable gaming clan Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Josh Parris#: 01:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and note that this is also the name of an upcoming tv show --Ajdz 03:48, 21 December 2005 (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.

2006

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. Proto::type 10:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Gaming

Looks like an ad. I'd say delete. Big top 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, notable and easily cleanable Valoem ^talk 22:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though right now it does sort of read like an ad. Needs some editing. RampageouS 22:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Very clearly passes WP:CORP. AfD is the place to discuss deletions, not article cleanups. -- Kicking222 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just cleaned the article massively. Valoem ^talk 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First of all, all or most of the sources can be found at www.mlgpro.com. Second of all, yes, we need to stick to MLG's history more, that is a big problem that needs to be fixed. So, in order to fix this problem, we need to make SUBPAGES that thoroughly explain the most successful and popular pros and teams over the course of MLG's history. I have started some of that to minimize some of the irrelevance. Check out the Star Wars wikipage and tell me how long the article would be if they included all the subpages' within subpages' within subpages' articles in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrashju (talk • contribs) (article author)
- Response I strongly disagree that there should be subpages for the individual gamers who play MLG. None of them meet WP:BIO. User:Arrashju has created numerous articles on gamers, all of which have been speedily deleted (except for the 8 year old who was on 60 Minutes). Further, this user's only contributions have been articles about MLG and edits to other articles (such as Sport) promoting MLG. NawlinWiki 12:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Don't assume every article is not going to be like the one I made on LiL Poison. When I add MLG to the sports section I am stating the facts. I am not trying to promote MLG, I am just trying to have a place to show ignorant folks what MLG is about. Also, every last one of the links I made to certain players meet more than one specific of this requirement: This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2.

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.

2007

2010

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 indef semi-protected. Protected by User:Courcelles; status as a heavily-vandalized article is not a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Gaming

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

I'm getting tired of editing back the IP edits. Besides, this article is really only edited once a year, so it's mostly useless. This article has come a long way since I revamped it soon after the first AfD nomination, but I think it's time to finally put it to sleep. Treyvo (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a little confused... are you saying this business is not notable, or that it's notable but too tempting a target for vandalism or bad edits? 28bytes (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: requested semi-protection. See no reason to delete the article. Yoenit (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the vandalism is excessive. Placed an indef semi-protection. Can the next admin through here shut this thing down? Courcelles 06:54, 30 September 2010 (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.

2011

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 delete. Courcelles 23:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct (electronic sports team)

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

Nominating using recent consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Boss (electronic sports team) as precedent. As MLGPro/MajorLeagueGaming.com is a primary source see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#MLGPro as situational Teancum (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant, reliable, 3rd-party coverage. And (completely off the deletion topic) in the unlikely event that the result is "keep", the article needs some very serious work. It's borderline incoherent. --Slashme (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I did find this press release but press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2011 (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.

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 delete. — Scientizzle 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arirang esports

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

It's a little gaming group I felt it should of been speedy deleted under A7. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My search shows nothing to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet general notability guideline with its trivial coverage. Norespectasip (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2011 (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.

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Singov

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. (Additionally, the article, minus the small intro, seems to be nothing more than a place to list off all these non-notable "medals" he's won...) Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of reliable sources. Per WP:USUAL, this could easily change as coverage of the e-sports scene expands - and, if sources become available about Mr. Singov, an article might become appropriate. But not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:51, 26 October 2011 (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.

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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Semke

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in German RS sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do you mind providing them? Ridernyc (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already did. See article. The Interior (Talk) 19:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you found one source, not sources. Ridernyc (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your response that you aren't fond of it. The Interior (Talk) 19:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2011 (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.

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Moum

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 26 October 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/vVv Gaming

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 delete. There probably needs to be a separate discussion on whether people like this should be included in WP:ATHLETE, but there is a clear consensus in those comments that did reference policy that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer)

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ATHLETE, "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." As a member of team Na'vi, Antonov participated in (and subsequently won) "The International", a major international professional competition for Dota 2 that was held at Gamescom 2011. See ShackNews. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is something like this really comparable to the Olympics, or "athletes"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the Olympics, but they are cyberathletes, yes. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want WP:Athlete to cover this I would recomend going there and getting concensus there first. Ridernyc (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to already cover it under the "Generally acceptable standards" criteria 1. Criteria 2 is for more specific sports, but I don't think it's necessary for a more specific section in this case. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you would have trouble getting consensus for your stance there. There is already a conversation on this topic here [1] and as you can see there is little to no support for an exception to the GNG for Professional Gamers. Not saying there should or shouldn't be, just pointing out that at this time there is no consensus for inclusion of these articles. As I pointed out in other places, if this person is truly notable show me some reliable sources. It should not be that hard or require debate. Ridernyc (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exception to the GNG appears to already have consensus established: WP:ATHLETE general criteria #1. If you believe that criteria is incorrect or misleading, then you could certainly make a case as such. But as I read it, it refers to major international professional competitions. I guess the question then is, was the tournament major and international? It was certainly international; the name of the competition was "The International". I think it was major as well. It was held at the world's largest games event, Gamescom, which has over 275,000 visitors. It was also hosted by Valve Corporation, arguably one of the biggest names in online gaming. By all accounts it fits the established consensus. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's your interpretation and you are welcome to it, but there a clear consensus that not all international competition satisfies WP:Athlete. In this neither the sport, the leagues, the teams, the competitions.... get substantial independent coverage. Basically WP:Athlete says notability is inherited in a sport or competition, in this case the sport and competition is marginally notable at best. Again I encourage you to start a conversation at the various notability guidelines if you feel this way, but at this time I do not see any guidelines or consensus that covers professional gamers. Ridernyc (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is now a different question to be answered: "Is the competition notable?" Yes, it definitely is. ology.com, VG247, VG247, VG247, GameRevolution.com, Joystiq, ShackNews, Kotaku, GamesRadar, PCGamer, GamePro, GameFront.

COMMENT related discussions as these players also participated in Dota 2 The International. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Toft-Andersen (Maelk from MeetYourMakers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zou Yitian (820 from EHOME). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable sources covering this player in a significant fashion are found, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Coverage about his team does not suffice. The Interior (Talk) 18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the WP:ATHLETE general acceptable standards critera #1? I think this person falls under that specific criteria. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm all for making some cyberathlete changes to that guideline, but that's the future. As to whether the tournament is notable, I'm not sure. Is it recurring, or a one-off? Why don't we have an article on it? I think for that exemption to apply, we'd have to be talking about something highly visible. After all, the example the guideline uses is the Olympics. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tournament will be recurring, and it is mentioned in the article Dota 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have an exemption if it can only be applied to the Olympics? It would have just said "And the olympics is notable" if that is how it was meant to be applied. We don't have an article because wikipedia is incomplete, but the tournament is certainly notable and there is nothing stopping its creation at some point in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I said example. The phrasing is "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". Notable wouldn't be enough. The Interior (Talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I made a case for above, it does appear to have been a major event, held at the largest annual video games event in the world. Well under 100,000 attend the Super Bowl. Not everyone coming to Gamescom attended for this tournament, but we don't have a breakdown of attendees based on what events at they attended at Gamescom. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think drawing an analogy between Gamescom and the Super Bowl is a bit of a stretch. But more importantly, I don't see any indication that e-sports is currently covered under Athlete, so this is moot. If iI was looking to rescue this article, I'd be looking for Ukranian-language profiles that would satisfy GNG. The Interior (Talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
e-sports is covered under athlete, at least in china its officially the 99th sport [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that they are not currently covered under our policy WP:ATHLETE. Whether they are athletes or not is a wider debate which would most likely have to be settled outside of Wikipedia. The Interior (Talk) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted, the person is notible, and has achived many medals, keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment went and checked and guess what our friend alredy brought this up and no this not covered by WP:Athlete. [3] As I have now pointed out in numerous places there is no consensus anywhere that cover these gamers beyond the GNG. If people want to try to form a consensus for these players this is no the place to do it. Ridernyc (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked there was "Is there a criteria for professional esports players?" The answer is obviously no, there is not specific criteria for pro esports players. However, there is general criteria for athletes in general, which I feel does apply. No need to form a specific consensus if a general consensus can already be applied. That's why we have the criteria in WP:ATHLETE. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the answer was no use the GNG. Funny how you ignore that. Consensus is use the GNG, it has been said repeatedly in multiple places. Ridernyc (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using the GNG is one option. The other option which I think should be applied here is to use WP:ATHLETE, since he is an athlete. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think he is not a real athlete, and this event is not comparable to the olympics. If he can't pass GNG, it should be a delete... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, The World Cyber Games is the third most viewed international event after the olympics and the fifa world cup. I would like to point out that The International has a much higher prize pool and will be recurring, thus it should be a notable event. Redefining history (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note These debates are being discussed off wiki here [4] I now know why so SPA's have been active on these pages. Ridernyc (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this account cos i dont have another wikipedia account. whats the problem with that? Redefining history (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting other people to come and take part in these debates[5] is against policy [6]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting them to give me ideas, not to join this debate. Redefining history (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

people can look at what you said there and make up their own minds. At this point I don't see an meat puppetry though, just putting the not ice out there. Ridernyc (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and pro gaming is not a sport so doesn't fall under WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is that eSports is not a sport? The Wall Street Journal seems to think differently: "This summer, "Starcraft II" has become the newest barroom spectator sport." [7]. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the argument of all the people in the centralized discussions about it. Playing video games is not widely considered a sport. That some people call it a sport is not debated, but that does not make it one. If the person is notable then find GNG coverage of it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this energy being wasted here. Seriously I would love to see an inclusion criteria for these people hammered out. Maybe if people would actually work on that instead of arguing endlessly in AFD debates we might get somewhere. As it is right now these articles will be deleted all this hot air will blow away and down the road we will have the same exact argument in another AFD. If you want these types of articles be proactive about it, change consensus, write guidelines, improve the project. Ridernyc (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to change the consensus here, but consensus appears to be that consensus is determined at AFD. So here we go. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion isn't related to this one...nowhere in it do you mention professional e-gamers. What he/she is suggesting is that someone work to create a SNG for gaming that the community agrees to accept. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help draft a proposal. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@DJSasso: The reason I made that discussion was because of this AFD. As you said there, consensus should be formed at AFD and then described in an SNG after it has been formed. Or am I misunderstanding you? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of...what I was saying is that guidelines aren't best practices. We don't write them and then try and get people to follow them. They are created by the observation of long term practice on the wiki and then the guidelines are adjusted to fit. However, trying to claim e-sports is an actual sport will take an actual discussion on a talk page. A user already brought it up in a couple of places and that isn't likely to get consensus. Which is why its been suggested you try and create a SNG for e-sports. And then propose it as a proposed guideline and then people will comment/!vote on whether or not they think it fits and is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, ..." The fact that you don't consider esports an actual sport is no more important than that, as a supporter of American football, I don't consider soccer an actual sport. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are from that standpoint, but not in the way you are describing them. Secondly from the article sport "Some non-physical activities, such as board games and card games are sometimes referred to as sports, but a sport is generally recognised as being based in physical athleticism." Your argument is a strawman....football is clearly a sport. Playing a video game however doesn't fit the definition. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you two either carry on on your talk pages or move the debate to WP:Athlete this really has little to do with this AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since he is trying to claim it meets WP:ATHLETE it has everything to do with this afd. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources GosuGamers.net eSportsFrance.com, sohu.com/PCHome.net, Darer.com, Darer.com, 178.com, ESFIWorld.com, sag-area.net, ItsGosu.com, ItsGosu.com --Odie5533 (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of those are single or couple sentence trivial mentions. Remember per GNG they need to be substantial coverage about them. In other words talking about them and their life. Not just a mention that they joined a team or won a tournament or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need to keep going over the same sources over and over again. Ridernyc (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources have not been posted here before. --Odie5533 ^talk 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. We really need to get a grip on what competitions are the "highest level" for this type of activity, but the $1M prize makes me think that the competition listed isn't trivial. I don't think I'd stretch this to things like the world Monopoly tournament and the like, but computer gaming competitions are probably at least as significant as many sports (certainly than say, Ultimate Frisbee Worlds which I think would qualify under WP:ATHLETE though it shouldn't IMO). And beyond participating, he was on the winning team. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page at WP:Athlete disagrees with you. Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading it, I'd say it's less than clear actually. In any case, I think the notion that top members of their sport/activity/whatever are worth having articles on seems applicable even if it doesn't fall under WP:ATHLETE. Eh, I can live with it either way. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words even though this person totally fails the GNG you like it so we should keep it. Ridernyc (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is not perfect in all cases. That's part of the reason we have SNGs. --Odie5533 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in other words I find we have a policy for X and I find Y closely corresponds to X and so is a reasonable basis for a precedent. I honestly don't care a bit about professional gaming. But given that it is a professional competitive activity, I'd argue we should probably treat it as we do similar things (including chess players, bowlers and race car drivers). Hobit (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply. I don't see the coverage needed to get past GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply here. The guidelines are suggestions, not absolute laws like the policies are. If you win a million dollars in a video game competition, then you are notable. Don't be anti-nerd and pro-jock here. Its a competition just like any game where people go outside and run around with a ball all day. Dream Focus 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not an issue of being jock-vs-nerd or the like. It is simply the fact that esport competitions do not have a body of reliable sources to build on yet. We know there are esports and various leagues and that it is a competition, but the day-to-day, event-to-event coverage that exists for other competitions just is not there to make people that participate within it, including top-tier winnings, automatically notable. Perhaps this will change in a few years, I can't say, but it would be crystal-balling it to assume that would be the case in arguing for retention. There's no reason articles on players can be placed into appropriate list articles since again the competition is notable, but individual articles for the competition winners is overkill. --MASEM (t) 13:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus, where did anyone say this was a jock/nerd thing? Or is that maybe something you just made up? I'm going to say that my multiple Star Wars userboxes probably at least negates your theory that those who vote delete are "anti-nerd". I have argued that playing video games is not a real sport and shouldn't be looked at through the prism of WP:ATHLETE. And, BTW, just winning a million buck doesn't make you notable. Significant coverage via reliable sources does. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not all reliable sources are accessible through an internet search. A gaming competition that is large enough to have a million dollars given out in prize money, is surely notable enough to get coverage somewhere. Having trouble finding much about it though. [8] But gaming news sites would surely mention who won the million. Dream Focus 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The competition has a wikipedia page The International (Dota 2 Competition) Redefining history (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - But that's the competition. Not the person. If we go by the logic that every person that wins a notable competition is notable, we should be listing every lottery winner, ever. No, just winning an average but notable competition is no presumed notability indicator. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Winning a lottery is nothing like winning a competitive event. Two totally unrelated things. Dream Focus 10:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excluding esports is just elitist. CallawayRox (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- who is excluding esports? We are excluding people with zero coverage in reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 7 of the 9 sources on the page discuss "player transactions," for lack of a better term, and cannot be used to establish notability. The other 2 sources consist of the results of a gamer forum fan poll (also not useful for notability) and of a tournament in which his team placed...his name isn't even mentioned. At best this could be userified to one of the supporters until such time as firm notability standards for "e-sports" are established (if consensus deems such standards are necessary beyond WP:GNG), or it could go to WP:DRV at that time. On a side note, I don't think that some of the folks here appreciate that it is far more common to use GNG to rescue an article from AfD for not meeting the SNG than it is the other way around. And that neither guideline guarantees notability. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not "anti-nerd" to point out the glaringly obvious fact that WP:ATHLETE is a completely inappropriate criterion to use here, with no more application than WP:PROF, WP:BAND, WP:PORNBIO or any other notability criteria having zero to do with playing video games. That being said, the subject fails the GNG. Are there any reliable sources any proponent wishes to cite, not counting gaming blogs? It is well-established policy that it is not enough - as DreamFocus disingenuously suggests - to claim that surely there must be reliable sources out there, somewhere, maybe, possibly, hopefully. Such sources must be produced. They have not been. Ravenswing 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I should give you interviews instead? Here you go [http://prodota.ru/ru/news/artstyleinterviewasus [9] [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The start of the interviews offers features of the player, which are secondary sources. Redefining history (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are articles about him under google news. [11] [12] [13] Redefining history (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More from google news [14] [15] [16] [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This time from russian sources. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Redefining history (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To The Bushranger's comments, interviews can be primary or secondary sources, depending on the circumstances. [24] No one figured out a way to reword that guideline page. Dream Focus 10:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS does not apply. See consensus on the article talk page regarding whether or not it should be included. Beyond that, most of the cited sources reference the player in passing. One or two sources appear to be blogs or on social networks. Some sources appear to interviews, which do not work for WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 08:02, 26 October 2011 (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.

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zou Yitian

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

non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. (It's not for any of these "Pro 'Dota' players" or whatever.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT : As he also participated in the Dota 2 The International (with EHOME) and placed 2nd, this could be based on the arguments going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: featured in a documentary by cctv5 [25] Redefining history (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I once again ask do you have any connection to these players that may cause a conflict of interest? Ridernyc (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note These debates are being discussed off wiki here [26] I now know why so SPA's have been active on these pages. Ridernyc (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As the argument is going on here, they might delete the pages first until the argument is over. that's why i've saved copies of the wikicodes to post them again when the argument is over." -- Does he really think that will work; that he won't get some form of disciplinary action for such behavior? DarthBotto_talk•cont 07:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By argument i mean the argument on notability of esports players, dont get me wrong. Redefining history (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting things wrong here: if this AfD decides that this person is not notable, then that will not change if some WikiProject would suddenly decide that professional e-sports players are notable. A project can propose something like that, but I sincerely doubt that it would fly. Any recreation of an article deleted after an AfD can be speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G4) and an editor who does this knowing that it is against the rules is almost certain to get blocked from editing. --Crusio (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability or meeting GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were coverage of this individual in his own right, then maybe a case could be made for notability. But I'm not seeing that here, nor can I find it elsewhere. WP:USUAL applies, however, if the subject becomes more obviously notable down the line. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails the GNG. Are there any reliable sources any proponent wishes to cite, not counting gaming blogs? It is well-established policy that it is not enough to claim that surely there must be reliable sources out there, somewhere, maybe, possibly, hopefully. Such sources must be produced. They have not been. Ravenswing 13:30, 25 October 2011 (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.

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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Yanushevsky

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

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. Notability not established. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was Kept way back in 2008, as the sources then present were enough to show that the subject met WP:ATHLETE as a top competitor in a world-class event or events. On that standard... I dunno, this might still qualify. I do know that our BLP standards are much stricter now, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I saw that as well, but it appears that consensus has changed. There have been 4-5 other similar articles from about a week ago, that have been deleted that are virtually exactly like this, and consensus there was that WP:Athlete did not apply. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can see what I'm talking about here, there are 6 of them below the AFDs for "Parallel Kingdoms" and "MeetYourMakers". Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus is also now that WP:Athlete has nothing to to do with professional gamers. Ridernyc (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 2 November 2011 (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.

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 delete. Salted due to offsite declaration to recreate. Note to other admins: keep an eye out for variant spellings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yanjun

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

Article on a "pro-gamer" with but one source and no real lasting claim to notability - perhaps I'm misreading, however, so opinion is welcomed. — Joseph Fox 12:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This gamer is really a recognized one idolized by gamers all over the world. I will try to add more sources. Redefining history (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of the World DotA Championships should be in-line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and i would like to request this article to stay. Although i acknowledge that much are needed to be improved in the article. Redefining history (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Only one of the "references" given actually mentions him, and that is insubstantial coverage on a non-reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joseph Fox and JamesBWatson. Insufficient sources. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-sourced. Also seems to not be written as per WP:NPOV, for two reasons: was created with a slew of other "pro DOTA players BLPs" (denoting the author is likely a big fan of the subject(s), lessening the likeliness of a "disinterested tone"), as well as choice of words ("Bu 'YaphetS' Yanjun is a retired Chinese professional DotA player worshiped by many for his great reflexes in game."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT :　Added more sources, more information and changed the tone of the article. Hope it gets to be kept :D Redefining history (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources look reliable, they're mostly seemingly from fansites or youtube. Fails to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK PROPERLY. The sites are official gaming media sites (mymym.com, gosugamers.net, sgamer.com, 178.com), and baidu baike. how are they fansites? Redefining history (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean like a fansite for the particular person, I meant like a fansite that documents competitive video gaming or whatevers going on here. These are small, obscure websites that still don't really qualify as a reliable sources. If Gamespot or IGN or someone well known was providing coverage, then that would be a different story. But I'm not sure "mymymy.com" is comparable to such a source... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i put in reliable sources and etc. etc. what else is still lacking in the article? i could further improve it to meet the wikipedia criteria. Redefining history (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just asking here : Jang Jae Ho is allowed to stand with practically the same sources (mymym.com , gosugamers.net) how is this article not allowed to stand? Redefining history (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument. Just because one article exists doesn't mean another one should automatically. Quite the opposite, if that article is indeed comparable to this one, it probably means that one is in danger of being deleted as well... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with this guideline. Salvidrim (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about notability brought up to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_gaming_media_partners Redefining history (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) discussion on WP:BIO brought up on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Professional_eSports Redefining history (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the first, the second doesn't need much more than what's said already -- needs to pass WP:GNG. Salvidrim (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : in progress of replacing sources such as mymym.com and gosugamers.net with INDEPENDENT and DISINTERESTED sources, such as chinese gaming media sites which reports on gaming in general (pchome.net counts as one rite?). Redefining history (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pchome.net looks possible at first sight, would need some experienced source-checkers to analyze it a bit more. It has no outright apparent bias or anything of the sort, which is already something Salvidrim (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also brought up the discussion here : Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_professional_eSports_players. I wish to settle this once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of the world of professional gaming. At this point in time simply being a gamer and having coverage on gaming sites is not enough. Would need to see some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i realized, pchome.net IS NOT A GAMING SITE, and instead is a digital technology lifestyle website. Is that enough? Redefining history (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule it should not be this hard to establish notability. So no to me it's not enough. The simple fact that you have have to search and search for sources if anything shows a lack of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you search "PIS DOTA" or "YAPHETS DOTA" on google, most of the sources will be from gosugamers and mymym (or even sgamer), but since it is argued that these are unreliable sources, i have to search for sources that are neutral, thats why its so hard to establish this notability. Redefining history (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is hard to establish notability because they are not notable. If someone is notable it is not hard to establish and you do not need to dig for sources. Ridernyc (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, im trying to claim to wikipedia that gosugamers and mymym are reliable sources. Redefining history (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you were already told that they are not. How many different places are you going to go to try to bend the rules to allow these articles. You got a no at Reliable Sources, you got a no at notability(people), you got a no at notability(athletes), am I missing any? Even though you were told WP:Athlete has nothing to do with these players you still have tried to use it in multiple AFD's. Either provide sources or have the articles userfied and try to to change consensus on notability for gamers. Stop trying to find loopholes. Ridernyc (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to find loopholes, instead, i am trying a way to change people's opinion on esports based on what have already been done for esports. Redefining history (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note These debates are being discussed off wiki here [27] I now know why so many SPA's have been active on these pages. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, I believe admins can block the creation of a page and/or prevent certain users from creating articles. Salvidrim (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I put in this note for the closing admin's attention. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have been one of the biggest proponents for the development of high quality DotA-related articles, such as Defense of the Ancients and Dota 2, (hell, I created the latter), we cannot have these articles about individual players. As a team, for a high-priced, well-sponsored, well-sourced organization, such as SK Gaming, then sure, but that even doesn't concentrate upon individual players. Be warned, drawing in anonymous and new users for an argument is against Wikipedia's policies and it may produce negative consequences if you continue this. DarthBotto_talk•cont 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment one of the above delete arguments: "no notability outside of the world of professional gaming." is actually an argument for keep. If the person is notable in the world of professional gaming, as shown by sources appropriate to that field, then they are notable. Wrestlers are notable in the world or wrestling, biologists in biology, legislators in politics. The equiavlent of notable to everybody is fame. Notability is much less than that. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that we should an article on X who participates in Y just because X has "no notability outside the world of Y" is not a keep argument, as it all depends on actually what "Y" is. If Y is a broadly covered subject by many reliable sources, then yes, that's a fair assumption. If Y is a very narrow field with few or no reliable sources, that argument breaks down. That's the issue with professional gaming: it is a field that exists, but the sources that cover it to any degree are not reliable, and the activities of professional gaming aren't really picked up by the general video game area. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to write a similar argument, but I think you probably covered better than I would have... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I continue to disagree. Everything is notable or not within its subject field. Masem, you're saying all the available sources are not reliable, which is a reasonable argument (that i cannot judge). That the sources are limited to the field is not a reasonable argument. Most good sources are limited to the field they cover. When we say, for example, we prefer academic journal articles for scientific subjects, these are almost always limited to their specific field, which is often quite narrow, The narrowness of the field or the number of the journals is irrelevant; if it has one or two journals which are reliable sources, they're reliable sources. If it has none, that's a problem. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that not only are they limited to the field, they are limited to a very small subset of the field. So far no one has shown any reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the example given, a "legislator being notable in politics" would be akin to a pro gamer being notable throughout the "gaming" world. This article, while no doubt notable within its own sub-community of a specific set of 3-4 games, would be akin to a legislator being notable only amongst the citizens of his borough in his city, and not in politics at large. Salvidrim (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The 3-4 games are all we have for e-sports ... Redefining history (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That is 100% false. Ridernyc (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        redefining history edited this article yesterday [28] I'm not going to count but you can see there is clearly way more then 3-4 games listed. How he can edit this article yesterday and then make this statement here today is beyond me. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, there are more than 3-4 games in esports. But the coverage rankings is - 1.Starcraft 2.DotA If he is notable in the dota world, and dota is notable in the esports world, he is notable. Redefining history (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:ITSA. This is the same as a politician notable only in his borough in his city -- even if the borough or city is notable by Wikipedia's standard, the politician is not. Salvidrim (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To DGG: I don't disagree that when you start to get into a narrower field, that the level of what we consider as reliable sources starts to become lower than for broad topics. But there is a minimum requirement for reliable sources that we can't go past, that being evidence of fact checking and editorialship and with sufficient independence. That's the problem here with esports is that as a narrower field of video games, the unique websites covering them fail the basic notability facets and so while the field and some of the leagues are covered in normally reliable VG sources, the individual players rarely get that. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm really not seeing the significant coverage in reliable third party sources that make me feel that it should be kept. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (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.

2012

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team Solomid

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

I don't see how this group of gamers is notable. No reliable sources verify any of the information. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any RS coverage besides some news articles about their general involvement in gaming competitions. Nothing to verify the information in the article. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable, third party sources. They're pretty much all fansites or forum posts. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - References link to offical website for Team Solo Mid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.158.71 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but not a reason for keeping. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the official website would be considered "first party", which could be used to verify facts, but not to establish notability. For that, you need third party (unrelated/unconnected) coverage on this topic. (For instance, websites like Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, etc) Sergecross73 msg me 17:57, 15 March 2012 (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.

Don't Delete They won the Ign pro league 4 (ipl 4) 25.000$ its one of the most famoues Gaming teams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.86.186 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013

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. Based on GNG, note that sources provided during discussion were not rebutted j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Leto

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

Insufficient notability; played Halo professionally 9 years ago and retired Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet the WP:GNG, there's no specific standards for "Pro e-sports" people have been created yet, and being a "Professional Halo Player" isn't inherently notable. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found quite a bit of significant coverage: here, here, here, and here. I'm amazed that someone can make a living playing video games but he certainly did and met WP:GNG in the process. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point though, it's all for being a halo pro for like two years then retiring and disappearing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the length of his career, it's the coverage he received, which was significant. J04n(talk page) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG comfortably. The argument about him only receiving coverage for Halo not being enough for notability makes no sense, with this logic, we'd have to delete at least half of the wiki! I see sources strung out over the time he was professional, and they're not all about one tournament, so it's not a BLP1E. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the concern; the concern is whether this notable thing he did that has some coverage justify a whole article. It does not. If someone wants to add these details to a professional video game playing article, or notable video game professionals article that would make sense, but it is very unclear this wouldn't just be keeping a permanent stub. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? AfD is not for merger proposals, and in the absence of a really relevant place to merge to, this article is perfectly valid as he meets GNG. Your entire nomination centred around the fact he wasn't notable: he's pretty clearly notable. Besides, there's room for expansion there, given the great length in which the articles about him are written. Also, notability is not temporary, so the fact that he retired in 2006 is irrelevant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though the notability is not temporary, it speaks to a small base of sufficent reliable sources to construct a solo article and justify its existence. And I agree, there is nowhere to merge, and that's why it's here and not a merger proposal. You are also right that this is centered on notability, which is not as clear as you're making it out to be. This logic could be used to create articles on thousands of Internet memes, with a thousand different websites parroting the same one or two facts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic escapes me entirely. This guy has in-depth coverage from even non-video gaming sources, like the New York Times, and Houston Press/Houston Chronicle. Let alone the in-depth coverage in reliable gaming sources, like GameSpot, and IGN (which is now a deadlink, but can be found here: [29]). Even just taking GameSpot and IGN, GameSpot is from 2004, IGN is from 2006. The GameSpot thing is from before World Cyber Games 2004, the IGN thing before the 2006 edition of Championship Gaming Series. This isn't a one event, he passes WP:GNG as clear as the nose on my face (you can argue Houston is local coverage, fine, but IGN, GameSpot and NY Times certainly is not), and this nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a perfectly valid stub, that could be expanded if someone wanted to, using the plethora of reliable sources available. Your comment about memes is irrelevant, as if they pass WP:GNG, then they may have an article, but very, very few do pass WP:GNG (reliable sources don't care for them). [30][31][32] is even more coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I "don't like" are non notable stubs. Let the votes fall where they may. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when two users prove it's a notable stub? *scratches head* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your assertion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question for me is not, how long was he playing professionally, or how many people wrote about him, but, was he one of the best in the game. I could be wrong about this, but there can't have been that many Professional Halo players, and therefore, yes, he was one of the best. Looking at his record on his page, first place in several tournaments, it looks like, again, he was one of the best. Any sport/game popular enough to have people paid to play should grant the best of the paid players--or all of them if there are only a few--enough Notability. Listmeister (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2013 (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.

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 no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWarfare League

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

I gather it has a large number of fans, but I could find no reliable third party source, nor has there been any since 2008. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:08, 19 June 2013 (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.

2014

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 delete. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Krupnyk

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

Subject of article appears to fail WP:GNG. Was unable to locate significant coverage of subject in reliable sources. The article has been tagged as requiring the addition of reliable sources but none appear to have been added. Hack (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no significant independent coverage to show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can find many videos online of Krupnyk participating in tournaments and interviews. He is very well-known in the StarCraft community, and if he fails WP:GNG then so do most of the articles in Category:Professional_StarCraft_II_players. —Entropy ^(talk) 00:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Hack (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass notability guidelines. This argument actually applies to lots of articles we have on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2014 (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.

2015

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. Consensus herein is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud9 (team)

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

No indication of notability is given. Notability tag was removed without any effort made to show notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, _{@TexasAndroid: pay attention to the talk page}. Just to reiterate my points - C9 is one of the most notable eSports team outside of Korea, next to TSM, fnatic, Team Dignitas, Ninjas in Pyjamas and other notable teams. Being the competitors in the top North American and World tournaments in Dota, LoL, Smash and as well as the new games HotS, Hearthstone and Halo: The Master Chief Collection. According to http://www.esportsearnings.com/teams they are the 12th highest earning team calculated by winnings (liable to change)

The intrinsic problem is that articles like this straddle WP:CREATIVE, WP:ATHLETE, WP:COMPANY and WP:ENT. The frontline gamers who are known both as entertainers and eSports Competitors, if we cross WP:PORNBIO into this where to be notable you need to have awards and substantial investment into a scene, then C9 have fulfilled this. Per WP:ENT, They even have a significant cult following as can be shown in the support present like in their recent performance in the NA LCS Springslit. Per WP:COMPANY there is even more Secondary and tertiary coverage to C9. Ideally WP:ESPORTS task force needs to come up with guidelines on this, but due to the only editors working on WP:ESPORTS articles being @ImRespawn and Prisencolinensinainciusol: the coverage is sparse, so just give it a WP:CHANCE, don't WP:DEMOLISH and allow for some WP:POTENTIAL.

Links

And some More

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DerryAdama has pointed out Cloud9 has had pretty extensive coverage, including in some mainstream outlets. I've noticed that a number of esports articles end up getting nominated for deletion by an editor who is presumably unfamiliar with the subject. That being said I'm going to see if I can draft up some esports notability guidelines so it's a bit clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I spot checked a few of the references, and many of these are extremely trivial passing mentions. For example, this Yahoo source listed above is extremely short, and only mentions the name Cloud 9 - nothing else - in the article. That's not significant coverage, so that source wouldn't go towards proving it meets the WP:GNG. Still undecided personally, just wanted to encourage people to look closely at the source, and don't just assume there's enough coverage because someone blasted a huge list of sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same with this Engadget article. Yes, its a RS, but very little of the article is about Cloud 9, and of that already small part, much of it is a few direct quotes from one of their members rather than any coverage on them. And the IGN source? Less than 2 sentences of it actually discuss Cloud 9 itself. I hope there are better sources out there, so far every one I'm checking is very trivial coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to League of Legends Championship Series or another competition article, maybe Dota? I reviewed all of the above sources. The only ones that matter for our purposes (secondary, reliable, independent sources) are:

http://www.dailydot.com/esports/cloud9-league-of-legends-challenger-team/

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/c9t-yusui-i-think-we-have-the-highest-amount-of-in/1100-6426693/ – an interview, so doesn't constitute secondary reporting

http://www.ausgamers.com/news/read/3496509/cloud9-acquires-smite-world-championship-winners-cognitive-prime – could work, but I'm concerned about reliability, no editorial policy

All the other stuff was passing/non-dedicated mentions or unreliable sources. At most, the reliable ones of the lot could be used to source a few sentences on the team's sponsorships, but not much more. I'm willing to change my mind if others can find articles from vetted video games sources. Myself, I found only passing mentions in the WP:VG/RS custom Google search—not nearly enough to justify an article. I'd entertain a redirect to one of the competitions as a useful search term, but I'm not seeing enough to write a sourced article on the team, as is. And for the whole content guideline discussion above—the only relevant guideline for this article type is the general notability guideline: either sources exist or they don't. In this case, the sourcing is very thin. Please ping me if you find more (non-English and offline) sources. czar ⨹ 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: with the custom search; did you search Cloud 9 or Cloud9 because Cloud 9 doesn't bring any relevant results but "Cloud9" does. Showing IGN, Kotaku, PC Gamer and gamestar.hu on the first page. Then miastogier.pl, polygon.com and 4gamer.net on the second.--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both (as well as other variants), but I also established that having a bunch of search hits from IGN, Kotaku, doesn't actually mean that the subject was covered in any meaningful way. I reviewed the sources and only listed those that I thought mattered towards the subject's case. The rest were passing mentions and/or had just as much coverage about a number of other non-notable teams. czar ⨹ 02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you here. A ton of trivial mentions, very little significant coverage. I'd recommend a redirect as well, though I don't know what the best target would be... Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added League of Legends Championship Series as my suggested target. From the coverage, the team is best known for their League and Dota competition, so one of those where they're actually mentioned by name would be best. I chose the former. czar ⨹ 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually redirecting is an incredibly poor idea, as alone there are six other teams not including the LCS team in six different games. People coming here may be looking for information on the match fixing by C9 in the CS:GO sphere

The Dota team is the current record holder for the longest competitive game ever

There is plenty of coverage from reliable eSports sources like the DailyDot, but your search doesn't curate them as most of the Gaming news sites don't give much coverage to eSports, other than saying it exists.

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People also come for all sorts of things we don't provide. The idea of a redirect is to provide a reasonable result for someone looking for the subject, which the above redirect would do. This said, I dug around in your sources again (had seen the Kotaku article and pcgamesn has no hallmarks of reliability). http://www.dailydot.com/tags/cloud-9/ would be very useful if we considered Daily Dot reliable. I've brought the site up for consideration at WT:VG/RS. czar ⨹ 00:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Dot looks like it'll be added to the list of vetted video game sources and their wide Cloud9 coverage easily brings the subject past the general notability guideline. @Sergecross73 and TexasAndroid. czar ⨹ 13:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirect - per Czar, and my commentary above, to his redirect suggestions. Its a plausible search term, but right now, a vast majority of the coverage is extremely trivial. Redirect for now, and maybe spin it out to its own article if it gets a few more sources that are not first party, not trivial, and reliable, like the types of sources found at WP:VG/RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC) The initial spotchecked sources did not meet the definition of "significant coverage", but the ones pointed out by Czar and Hahnchen do, so I'm find with keeping now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found quite a few reliable sources focused on C9 that I'm starting to put in the article. I have no idea how everyone managed to find so few. There's even a print source, a cover article in Playboy that featured Cloud9. I think beyond a doubt that the article will be a keep. The only logical RD I can think of would be to something like List of esports teams or something, since C9 has a notable prsence in several games, not to the LCS article.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered extensively in reliable sources independent of the subject. Playboy OnGamers Even teams which haven't been covered to this degree should probably be kept, and notability guidelines should more closely follow WP:NSPORT which is more almanac-y in nature than other video game guidelines. - hahnch e n 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by --- :D Derry Adama shows the subject clearly passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Derry Adama's persuasive arguments. Pax 23:53, 26 April 2015 (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.

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ognian Gueorguiev

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. He is not mentioned in another article so as to warrant a redirect. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 02:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. highbeam, Jstor, scholar, news and newspapers resulted in zero hits. A google books search resulted in this single hit, which is a mirror of the Wikipedia page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 07:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG by not having significant, reliable, independent coverage in sources (that I can find). There are a bunch of hits from list/tables and non-independent venues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:12, 21 August 2015 (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.

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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Team Makati (AWS Dota 2 CGC Team)

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

Self-promotional and doesn't indicate the team's notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (There's no need for the disambiguator on this article, and it doesn't follow conventions anyway—not supposed to use proper nouns in disambiguation.) Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had zero hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and no coverage in The Daily Dot, our usual source for eSports. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please {{ping}} me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. Lots of these eSports team articles can go. They were added indiscriminately. – czar 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I would have CSD'd this Gbawden (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Czar's argument. I also agree that, if this somehow does survive AFD, it should be renamed. Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 16 July 2015 (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.

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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EA Cup

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

Per WP:GAMECRUFT: a competition in the video game FIFA goes out of the encyclopedic scope. Also fails WP:GNG. Esquivalience ^t 23:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing specifically about this and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. SwisterTwister talk 17:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page is just gibberish to anyone and everyone who has no understanding of the topic or FIFA in general. --☣Anar chyte☣ 06:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable and clearly falls under WP:GAMECRUFT. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FIFA (video game series) or delete. It's an unlikely search term, but I guess it could happen. It's too bad we can't redirect people to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2015 (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.

2019

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fnatic tournament results

This page is pretty much useless and is out of date. I think it would work better if this page was deleted and results were moved to a sub-section on the main Fnatic page.

2021

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. This appears to have been a bad faith nomination and the sockpuppetry is disregarded. I am not sure what policy/guideline based argument is made by the remaining delete !vote but as it has been demonstrated and agreed that there is sourcing that meets GNG the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports

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

~~promotion of esports and paid press release PanunKoshurBoi (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)~~Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sardar Nadir Ali[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Perryprog (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I follow the deletion argument. This appears to be a referenced article about an esports league. It's had a bit of suspicious editing activity, but even ignoring banned users, it seems to have been edited by a number of people, and is referenced to news articles from different sources. What am I missing? ApLundell (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ApLundell, you're missing the "rivalry game" played by these new accounts. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 08:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I see now. Children fighting.

KEEP. ApLundell (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reliable source that show this eSports is qualifying for wikipedia SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SavingWikiFromSpaming was a block-evading sockpuppet of TheRedReaper, who had been indefinitely blocked at 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -- Stalwart's cross-border collaboration project was covered by Vice, Dot Esports, and The Indian Express. There's also this in the Economic Times and this in the Esports Observer, which WP:VG considers reliable. I wouldn't rely on the AFK Gaming site for notability, but I don't think this article needs to. I'm also pretty confident that users like SavingWikiFromSpaming aren't exactly operating in good faith, as their only edits are to !vote delete on esports AfDs and file spurious SPIs. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources, as indicated by Alyo. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 02:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete News article don’t show the significance of a team. A team should win or participate in a notable competition. If i only create a team and post some news article it is not shows a good thing. This thing may only created for social handle verification. Wikipedia should not promote this unimportant objects. Wikipedia is like a mirror for world which gives us real history about our past and present. Please do the appropriate thing it deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.161 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on a crusade against Zeyan Shafiq – see IP range 03.127.95.160–163's contribution history.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 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.

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 no consensus. This discussion points to a real need for either a subject notability guideline for eSports teams, or an explicit statement that no SNG applies and it's the GNG or bust. Too much of the discussion was taken up arguing over NCORP and NSPORTS to get any real clarity about the quality of sourcing. It would be appropriate to revisit this in a year or so. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart Esports

AfDs for this article:

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

A not so famous eSports team. Just routine coverage. No international or regional ESL participation. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment: I'd like to see this nomination at least address the sources that led to this article being kept a few months ago? In the absence of that I still default to keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alyo, This is a single event case i.e., Being in the news with a single event - "cross-border cooperation" - does not in itself mean that an entity (organization in this case) should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. -Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the future you should say that in the AfD nomination; as it is the nom appears to ignore a lot of previous discussion about the article topic. Regardless, if the main reasoning for deletion is WP:CORPDEPTH, then I completely disagree with your interpretation and I don't think that the geopolitical aspect of Stalwarts activities falls under "brief mentions and routine announcements". I'm still a keep. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my Esports team! I joke, but I think I've been editing here longer than they have been e-sporting. Alyo makes a salient point here; what has changed since February this year? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Stalwart111, it shouldn't have been passed in the Feb. Anyway, I will try to dig more into the page editors and it's reviewers history. - Hatchens (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if you disagree with an AFD close, that's a matter for WP:DRV. Otherwise, the relevant guide is WP:RENOM. WP:1E relates to people (not groups), WP:NCORP relates to companies (not sports teams), WP:ROUTINE is about statutory announcements and the like (not announcements by a group that have received significant coverage in reliable sources), and the history of the article isn't really something that is relevant to the subject's notability (but is relevant to WP:BEFORE which includes a check of the talk page which features the COI declaration you were looking for). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Stalwart111, There has been a discussion on ESPORTS-related notability and its inclusion as per WP:NSPORTS. Currently, there is a clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport - here is the link of that discussion. Since, it's not classified as a "SPORTS TEAM" (in Wikipedia)... so we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines. And, according to that... the organization simply fails because WP:CORPDEPTH (and rest of the coverages are nothing more or less than WP:ROUTINE). If we scrutinize it further, then you will find the page creator himself/herself is banned (indefinitely) - though I was quite skeptical to add CSD notice under G5 provision so I added AfD tag (2nd nomination). As you have rightly said, I could have gone through WP:DRV... But it's no more relevant because this new nomination has been added after 6 months. Feel free to rectify my interpretation, if it's found to be incorrect. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You expressed disagreement with the result of a previous AFD; the correct forum for that disagreement is DRV, not another AFD. It might not be disruptive (as renominating it might have been inside 6 months) but its still the wrong venue. The genesis of the article (and the involvement of banned editors) is irrelevant to the subject's notability. As for notability, I'm not sure why - having decided WP:NSPORTS is the wrong guideline - we should default to WP:NCORP for this unincorporated affiliation of esports participants...? "we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines"... why? There are some corporations that the community has decided shouldn't be subject to that guideline. I'm not sure why we're looking for reasons to subject non-corporations to it. Where nothing else fits, we have WP:N and WP:GNG in particular. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Stalwart111, I can't help with your interpretation on WP:DRV - you are good in twisting it based on your interest - like at ongoing AfD Discussion of Luca Soccer Club (& there... I extended my support for the same). Nevermind, you yourself know the best reason behind such duplicity. Now, if we look at this entity which has been listed with Crunchbase as "For profit" organization - by default we have to assume it under WP:NCORP. If not, then as per your likings if we consider it under the provision of WP:GNG - then also it fails. Btw, I don't know how that DRV got closed without much discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Stalwart111, also I didn't participate in earlier AfD discussion so there is no question of me having any prior disagreement. This nomination is a fresh call that too taken after 6 months gap. So, kindly treat it accordingly. - Hatchens (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no "twisting" or "duplicity", it's a simple matter of WP:WRONGVENUE. But if all you have to offer this discussion is bludgeoning and personal attacks there's no point engaging with you. And raising an AFD where the nominator probably should have been referred to WP:ANI is an... interesting... tactic. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Stalwart111, I am not responsible for your poor interpretation of wiki guidelines. However, before you go ahead with your WP:ANI threat tactic... I would recommend to add this AfD to an appropriate AfD discussion thread such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports/afd to generate much wider general consensus (under the assumption of good faith). We never know, we both may learn couple of good things. -Hatchens (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you on about? There's no threat; you were talking about a different discussion. Please read things properly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Stalwart111, it's ok, leave it. Can you help me to tag this AfD with proper AfD discussion category to generate wider consensus? We need much better inputs on how to categorize this entity. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No. Nothing about this has been good-faith. You didn't conduct proper WP:BEFORE checks, accused another editor of not declaring a COI when they clearly had, then accused someone else of undeclared paid editing and sock-puppetry, then accused me of duplicity and deliberately misinterpreting guidelines to make a WP:POINT. Why on Earth you think I would support any of that is beyond me. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the editors Abhayesports tried to reach out and gave one of the highly vague lecture on "South Asia Esports Scenario" which can be accessed via this link - User_talk:Hatchens#About South Asian Esport Scenario. Also, the ID which has tried to reach out to me tried to create a page for the founder of this not-so-notable esports team. High Possibility: WP:COI/WP:UPE/WP:SOCK. -Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hatchens: It's already known that Abhayesports has a COI with Salwart Esports (see Talk:Stalwart Esports); hence why, I assume, they have not included themselves in this Afd discussion. Moreover, I believe they were just trying to inform you as to why there is no ESL participation (which isn't a necessity for notability -- I'm not sure why that was included in the deletion rationale). Let's AGF here. — Pbrks (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Hatchens, I Could've commented it here but i'm under a COI with Stalwart Esports, My only reason to write it to you privately was to aware you of the esport scenario in south asia since you've mentioned that it doesn't have ESL Participation. it's clearly evident that you're not acting in a good faith, you're accusing me of Sockpuppetry just because i tried to enlighten you about the information you didn't have? Did it hurt your ego? I have no idea who you are but as far as the sources are considered, They clearly satisfy WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:VG. Also that wasn't a vague lecture but something you didn't have idea of. The proof to this is your response to my message, you clearly don't have an idea of what Major events are and you don't know the difference in between South Asia and South East Asia, i've explained it to you there tho. Me being nice to you there doesn't mean you have the right to speak anything you want,. Please assume good faith here. Good Luck Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pbrks, exactly bro, this is why i didn't comment here, and wanted to just simply tell him that ESL isn't that big in south asia as much it is in NA or EU or some other region. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pbrks, There is no WP:COI declaration on user page / user talk page of Abhayesports. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a declaration the article's talk page with a permanent link: [33]. — Pbrks (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Pbrks, Ok, I saw it now. I missed it at the first place. my bad. - Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hatchens, Only if you'd have actually researched before putting it up for AfD you'd have found out that it's declared over the Talk Page of Stalwart Esports, Moreover i've removed it from my Talk Page because i didn't want to edit Stalwart Esports anymore due to the COI, that's why the last edit i made was just to update the logo. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless there is a reason as to why the given sources that Alyo has provided are not sufficient. — Pbrks (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pbrks, it's fails as per WP:NCORP and most of its coverages are WP:ROUTINE.Period! - Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason WP:NCORP should apply, and WP:ROUTINE isn't relevant here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In total agreement with the analysis of Hatchens. The sources are too weak. These kind of routine coverages doesnt add upto WP:NCORP.. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 04:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)_{Editor has now been blocked as a sock-puppet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete If we take WP:RS as a basic criteria, there are two sources that shine. First is Indian Express [34] and second one from Vice [35]. Both are about same event (which brings in the question of intellectual independence!) and unfortunately are very borderline to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are bits and pieces which could be considered but as a whole, sort of not getting there. This is very classic when reporters tell what is being told and there is no other efforts for fact check or to enrich the news by more in-depth research. That being said, good possibility that company can become notable in future and recreation should be allowed without prejudices, ideally via AFC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin: Nomadicghumakkad was called in here to make a vote by Hatchens by pinging him on his talk page while i was trying to give him information about ESL and South Asia. My conversation at Hatchens Talk Page. Also considering that this Article was once subjected to AfD and was stormed by a group who wanted to get it deleted, i'm not accusing anyone but there could be possibility of the same group acting again. I'd request Admins to look into their accounts as well because the information they're trying to push into this AfD is incorrect, i've given a brief information of why ESL isn't active in south asia at hatchen's talk page. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know there are few users who are in the hurry to close this discussion. So, I would request to those... please hold patience. Regarding Nomadicghumakkad, he/she is one of the AFC Reviewers whom I trust for withholding Wikipedia guidelines, and let me assure you he/she takes unbiased/uninfluenced call irrespective of what I say. So, it's not a WP:CANVAS - I assure everyone out here. Despite he/she voting for delete, I had a doubt on this entity's classification on Wikipedia - is it WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? To clear it, I religiously went to WP:TEA, raised my concern, and got this particular reply from Usedtobecool. There is still an ambiguity on how to classify an esports team but as per the lede (of this entity) - "it seems to meet the criteria given at NCORP". So, as of now, we will continue to treat it as an "ORGANIZATION" till we get a much better classification. So, my humble request is don't get excited. I'm quite thankful for Abhayesports for declaring WP:COI which I missed seeing in the first place because the tag was put on the entity's talk page rather than on the user page. Now, could you guys just excuse with your interpretations and wait for other's opinions so that a wider consensus can be derived. NOTE: We will use this AfD discussion as one of the case studies to initiate a discussion at Category_talk:Esports_organizations or Talk:Esports or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports and suggest launching a Wikipedia Project Esports to discuss and frame proper guidelines for Esports organizations (Thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for suggesting this). -Hatchens (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue to treat it as such, but we are under no obligation to follow your lead. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a legit question if this is canvasing or not and unfortunately there is no straight answer to it. Hatchens asked to look at this AFD and figure if there was a COI problem. They never said go and participate. So, solely basis on past experiences, theoretically, this is not canvassing. But that's theory of course. In practical sense, if someone tags me to look at an AFD for whatsoever reasons, my likelihood of commenting increases. But I felt this discussion could use some more diverse opinions and hence came here. About Eports teams being a company or not - the way I would look at it, if they are making money in any format (even through cash prizes), they should be considered as a company. But that's my view. Feel free to strike my comment if you felt it didn't give a new perspective and came in here only to support the nominator by adding another invaluable keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomadicghumakkad, I trust and value your assessment. I have given necessary explaination. Let the closing admin take the call on your vote. In the meanwhile, keep up the good work at AfC reviewing. - Hatchens (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete NCORP applies to organizations of any type whatsoever. There are similar problems for profit making commercial companies as with volunteer organization --basically, they all live by publicity, and will use the press to get it. For all of them, material discussing only routine activities and funding is not enough to show notability. That's the reason for the NCORP restriction--not the desire to reduce coverage, but the need to reduce coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NORG covers any group of more than one person formed together for a purpose, except small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people) and non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If a group not covered by the exceptions has another specific notability guideline, it can be presumed notable based on that, without meeting NORG (not a direct quote, but also from NORG). When one concedes that esports team are not a traditional sports team and therefore not covered by NSPORTS, and that there is no specific guideline for esports teams, and that it is not among the exceptions listed, then it's simply logical that it is covered by NORG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Usedtobecool, you know what's the irony - Stalwart111 forcing us to accept this eSports team as per WP:NSPORTS despite we clearly telling him/her... at this moment eSports are not considered to be part of NSPORTS. On the other hand, at an another AfD he/she doesn't want a football club - Luca Soccer Club to be assessed under WP:NFOOTY because he/she thinks WP:GNG is the appropriate guideline and keep the page. I am done explaining and I surrender. I have not seen such poor interpretation of Wiki guidelines on AfD discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my argument there is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same here. It doesn't matter if that club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if this sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was investigating the Stalwart for paranormal activity and happened to eyeball check this out for a possible COI which isn't the case, just a random chance as two people might have the same date of birth. The New indian Express and the Vice are good; but checking out the associated "Stalwart Freestyle" starts to bring in Pakistan based resources such as [36], leading to a solid keep; albeit the article might need a move(rename)/redirect(s). Its an alt to deletion though. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I voted for a keep in previous AfD based on Alyo's sources but DGG's arguments above make sense to me. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are people argues that it should pass WP:NCORP, but there are no consensus on that and are just personal opinions. Until then WP:GNG that matters which it passes already. - The9Man ^(Talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stalwart Esports has never played an international tournament. It is just a small organization that participates in local tournaments. The team also has never won any major local tournament.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaditya.abh, Hey, i don't think winning any tournament determines notability. But just to answer your question, Stalwart has played all the Pubg Mobile Pro League seasons till date which is a Major PUBG mobile tournament(PP- $200000+) , and has played multiple seasons of Free Fire Indian Championship. Again, even these things don't determine notability on wikipedia. Read WP:GNG. Just helping you out since you're a new esport editor on wikipedia. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaditya.abh, Oh i see, At the first you say that They haven't played any major tournament hence aren't deemed to be fit on wikipedia later you say playing any major local tournament shouldn't be considered note worthy. You're clearly confused. Also you're actually repeating what i said. Winning or loosing tourneys doesn't make any team notable, They should pass certain parameters on wikipedia to be considered as notable. I'm just assuming good faith here :). Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhayesports I don't think you are getting my point. Anyways, I once created a page for S8UL Esports which was deleted because of not passing the notability test. It's afd. The organization is superior in notability to stalwart Esports. The page I created can be still seen HERE. Now if that page was deleted for failing notability, the same arguments can be applied here. Peace ✌️☮️Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe you are taking this personally because of you having a COI with the topic of the page in question. Aaditya.abh (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaditya.abh, Hey again, As said i am assuming good faith and just trying to correct your information. Moreover COI is the reason why i haven't made any vote here. But i believe COI can't stop me from defending false information considering that most of the admins might not be well versed with esports and would think that what you've written is correct when it's not. You've posted misleading information above classifying Pro League as a minor event and disregarding FFIC. So i believe it's my duty to raise awareness on the same because a $200k tourney can't be classified as minor. We don't take things personally here, this is a public encyclopaedia and we're all here to contribute. If i wasn't Assuming good faith i'd have dig up that you're doing this just because i commented on your S8UL AfD and disregarded those invalid sources as RS. But i didn't because my sole reason of replying to you was to correct your knowledge on Minor and Major Events in PUBG Mobile. Also just researched another thing, their current PUBG mobile lineup are the former PMPL Champions. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 06:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Alyo and Stalwart111. This is an eSports team, not a company. It was agreed in the previous discussion that the article should be kept. Article is good enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an esport team, it's not clear NCORP or NSPORT is the appropriate guideline to apply (i.e. it's controversial either way). As such, for lack of a clear SNG WP:GNG is our default. Based on the evidence from the first AFD, GNG is met.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break

Delete per DGG. When it comes to organizations, we need to be mindful that Wikipedia isn't a platform to leverage routine coverage into a promotional tool. I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG with more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but WP:ORG is also instructive. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shooterwalker: Could you please elaborate as to how the sources in the article qualify as only trivial mentions? Specifically, [37], [38], and [39]. — Pbrks (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team has not achieved notable results. They have yet to appear in an S-tier tournament in PUBG which I would assume would be the baseline for a WP:ESPORTS page if it was created. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Swordman97:, I don’t think participation in a certain tournament makes any team notable(as per my understanding of wikipedia’s guidelines), participation in major’s is a notability criteria for liquipedia but wikipedia follows certain guidelines and as per WP:GNG this subject has several WP:RS which meet the guidelines. Moreover, if all the teams who have participated in major’s are notable to have a page on Wikipedia then there are many esport teams out there who should be on WP, moreover can you kindly share the link to the specific guideline about having participation in a major to be notable for WP, Also, just to answer your query, Stalwart has participated in all the 4 seasons of Pubg Mobile Pro league South Asia, which is a major Pubg Mobile tournament, although I don’t believe it matters but still just answering your query. Warm Regards---Abhay Esports Talk To Me 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the ~~continental series or global championship~~global championship. They have not achieved that yet and they are not an especially winning or notable team so they don't need an article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swordman97: This is not a valid reason for keeping/deleting an article, as any sort of WP:NESPORTS does not exist. Please explain why the sources present in the article do not demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSCRIT does not apply to esports articles, as WP:NSPORTS does not in general. I fail to see how the sources are trivial. The Vice, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports articles contain significant non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Pbrks (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of sources used on the page are not considered reliable. Sportskeeda and The Times of Esports are not considered reliable.Gyan.Know (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyan.Know: You may be correct (I haven't checked The Times of Esports) that these are not considered reliable. However, Vice, The Indian Express, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports are. Please explain why these sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Aaditya.abh, who has participated in this discussion previously, changed their username to Gyan.Know. — Pbrks (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: The sources you mentioned latter are reliable and contribute to page's notability.

But as you can see on the page, some of the information provided is original research and no sources are provided as to that. In short, lack of sources for information on the page. Gyan.Know (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyan.Know: This isn't how WP:AfD works. In general, if reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic exist, then the article satisfies WP:GNG. An article may contain original research or some poor sources, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. — Pbrks (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbrks: The Free Fire section of the page does not cite a single source. And going accordingly to your points, it is okay for that information to be there? Gyan.Know (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what we are discussing. The main question is whether or not the reliable sources that do exist (see the sources Alyo provided here) demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentleman wiki do you mind specifying wihch part of the nom you agree with? That the team is not famous because they've not been in an ESL tournament, which isn't based on any policy guideline, or that sources like this, this, and this fail sigcov and GNG, which seems...like a statement that needs some justification. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to me that the crux of this debate is whether NCORP applies to this esports team or not, and for this I feel we should ignore the letter of the policies, as clearly they are insufficient for this edge case and instead consider the intent, which is as a line of defence against the proliferation of corporate spam. Per this SPI, this article was created by a sockmaster pushing very hard for articles about the matter and other associated individuals which suggests a COI; as such, I feel it is appropriate to consider this under NCORP which means delete is the appropriate decision. I was actually expecting this line of argument to lead to a "Keep" !vote when I started down it, but I guess I was wrong BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a way. It is unclear whether the WP:NCORP applies; there are arguments for and against. I probably lean towards the "for" argument, as these teams are for-profit entities that relying on popularity, at least in part, for their revenue.

However, I decided that the situation was sufficiently nebulous that we would be better off considering the spirit of WP:NCORP, not the word, and to do this I thought we should look into the background of the article's creators; did they create it "under a cloud", is it reasonable to expect a COI or UPE to exist. To my surprise, it turned out that such a cloud existed, and thus it seems in line with the spirit of NCORP to apply it, and as there seems to be a consensus that the article should be deleted if NCORP applies, the only reasonable result, in my opinion, is delete. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, the author having a COI wouldn't be a reason for deletion in the first place, so applying an inapplicable guideline just to produce that result doesn't seem appropriate. The author's COI, or potential COI, isn't even something WP:NCORP considers, so it seems particularly bloody-minded to apply that guideline as some kind of strawman. The arguments in favour of deletion want to disingenuously apply WP:NCORP for the same reason; the subject doesn't pass that guideline so if they can argue that guideline should apply, they can have it deleted. "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". This fish should not be expected to climb that tree. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources look fine to me, and I don't think any higher standard above WP:GNG should be applied here. Whether the creator of the page was or was not a spammer or did or did not have a conflict of interest is irrelevant; what matters is whether it meets the applicable policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, it does. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our WP:GNG. The first AFD, also found that GNG is met. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG that news coverage of routine doings of commercial organizations is insufficient for notability and that WP:NCORP applies. Besides, due to the problem of paid news in India, the Indian new sources cited in the article cannot be relied upon. Sandstein 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to tell Wikipedia:WikiProject India that most of their articles will need to be deleted? These contributions are getting insane, and insanely bad faith. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have argued above, WP:NCORP applies, and the topic fails it.
Even WP:GNG is not met. WP:GNG is a criterion for a presumption that if these sources exist, it must be a topic worth knowing about (encyclopedic knowledge), and there must be more, enough to support a detailed and balanced article. The links that have been presented here for the purpose do not inspire confidence wrto. either. It was interesting and newsworthy when people from rival nations cooperated and it brought temporary media attention; that is not enough for notability which is more permanent. We could as well use the same references and write 2020 cooperation between Indian and Pakistani gamers to participate in the PUBG Mobile Pro League South Asia after PUBG was banned in India, except it's not a notable event under the same sources. How can the same sources make an event non-notable and a group of people notable? They don't. If this is not an organisation, it's a group of people involved in an event. That event is not notable and regardless, the group fails WP:BIO1E. The only escape is to make this group a sports team which is against community consensus. Even if it weren't, it fails any reasonable sporting guideline we might have come up with, as the coverage is about a single event, the filling of roster (not playing) for a competition that is not played at the highest level.
Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that WP:NCORP applies here. NCORP is broader than WP:NSPORT when it comes to sports teams, which are "organizations" -- NSPORT would be an "escape route" from NCORP application by way of specificity, but since esports are not categorized as sports for the purposes of NSPORT, this article can't escape NCORP. Subject fails NCORP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart111, your sarcastic tone has been duly noted. -Hatchens (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm unsure about the specifics of WP:NCORP vs WP:NSPORT which seems like a wider discussion, but for me the article passes WP:GNG , and nothing has shown the original decision should be overriden. Vanteloop (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanteloop: It isn't complicated, but it has a certain logic that needs to be followed. It isn't about a wider discussion, just about logic:

NSPORT deals only with things commonly held to be sport, and not with things only sometimes referred to as a sport or things that share some common elements with sport
The community does not hold that esports are sport (there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether they are or aren't, which has been noted down)
Therefore: NSPORT doesn't apply to esports -- so what does?
Regardless of differences between esports and sport, esports teams, like sports teams, are organizations
NCORP applies to organizations in general (had NSPORT not existed, the applicable guideline for sports teams would have been NCORP)
therefore: it is NCORP that applies to esport teams
this esports team as a subject of encyclopedic coverage doesn't pass NCORP (for obvious reasons)
when NCORP is the controlling norm and subject doesn't pass NCORP, said subject is non-notable, because there is no other way notability can be established or presumed for it (such as GNG, because NCORP, within it's area of application, is applied not in tandem with GNG, but instead of GNG)
therefore: the subject is non-notable
and ultimately: this article (being that it deals with a non-notable subject) should be deleted — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP: "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.". Your novel 10-step interpretation isn't supported by that guideline at all. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." However, whether esports teams are "sports teams" is the question at issue here! If they aren't sports teams, then they are clearly a "group of people organized together for a purpose" and so are covered by WP:NCORP. If they are sports teams, then they are specifically exempted from WP:NCORP and covered by WP:NSPORTS (which as you point out just defers directly to WP:GNG for sports teams). So Alalch Emis's point (4) is incorrectly stated, and in fact the argument for which notability guideline to apply hinges on whether esports teams are sports teams. Suriname0 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, we should probably just reflect what reliable sources say about esports I guess: [40], [41], [42]. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:29, 21 October 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.

2005

2006

2007

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2019

2021

Editing break

PRODS

DRV