Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports/afd/2016

Q1

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kal : The CSGO Player

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

Article about an alleged Counter-Strike (a first person shooter) professional player. The sources say nothing at all about the player. One is bout the role of AWPer he is supposed to play; another is about Overwatch, some entity which controlled his performance; and a third about playing the game. A picture of an avatar looking just about any soldier, with a huge blurred chicken on the foreground does not add to the credibility. It may be notable, it may not, it may even be a joke. It sure is a unsourced BLP, at best - Nabla (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost certainly not notable, COI. Curro2 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nearly speedy material and nothing suggesting a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non-notable, unsourced BLP and possible hoax. The references on the page just point to generic information on esports and CS:GO.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a plain joke article. It has subtle joke quotes like "many believed he was using 3rd party aid in terms of aiming and vision assistance." I also couldn't find anything but the player profile (which all of the hundreds of thousands who play get). The writer doesn't understand what adding the percentage to the kill to death ratio means (it would mean the ratio is 1 to 20). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2016 (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 speedily, as a page created by a blocked editor in violation of a block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuxx

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

Not a notable person, and the creator has been blocked as a sock puppet. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @JDDJS: Why not WP:G5 these? I don't see any substantial edits other than the sockpuppet (the only one which looks big was actually just filling in bare references, which isn't a substantial improvement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I could, but usually I like having an official discussion, but maybe you're right. JDDJS (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2016 (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.

Q2

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. Nakon 03:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Henry (sports announcer)

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this page is a well-known person worldwide, and is not limited to just within the League of Legends community. A considerable population would consider this person a very notable individual. Wikipedia masterr (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it with reliable sources. As of now, the article only has 2 sources, one of which is Facebook, which is not reliable. I did a Google News search for "Trevor Henry"+Quickshot and only got 4 results, none of them being recent. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable with no viable third-party sources. Google search turns up multiple individuals who share this name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My search didn't come up with anything to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 04:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Clubjustin (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author, Wikipedia masterr, has been blocked as sock. Not saying we should end this discussion, but just feel that it should be noted. JDDJS (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seeing as the article was created by the sock of a blocked user, this would fall under CSD G5. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in Red Bull, Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Engadget and Mail and Guardian. The fact that the article was created by a sockpuppet is a problem but it shouldn't be deleted solely based on that fact.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (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. I won't userfy this content, but others may. Sandstein 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo

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

Not a notable person. JDDJS (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this page is a well-known person worldwide, and is not limited to just within the League of Legends community. Wikipedia masterr (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only the Daily Dot source would meet the requirements of a WP:RS, and even that's a short article that only partially discusses him. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG as is. Sergecross73 msg me 04:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a second The Daily Dot article that is primarily about him.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it some WP:POTENTIAL. Reliable sources for the subject can be found using a web search.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Can you present some examples? Sergecross73 msg me 03:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the links to the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of mentions but currently little of substance about his career or role as an individual apart from Kotaku clickbait czar 06:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author, Wikipedia masterr, has been blocked as sock. Not saying we should end this discussion, but just feel that it should be noted. JDDJS (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 11:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins, if this page is deleted, can I get it immediately restored to my userspace. Just thought I'd ask here in case I forgot to later. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2016 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) st170e^talk 01:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bengi (video gamer)

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

Not a notable person and article creator was blocked as a sock puppet. JDDJS (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Claimed notability is that of a two time winner of a high profile (professional?) video game championship... if the game in question was Starcraft, I'm pretty sure this person would meet our notability standards. My only question is whether League of Legends tournaments are of as high notability as Starcraft. If so, or if at least comparable, I'd have to !vote keep, but I'd like to hear other opinions first. Fieari (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professional, yes. My feeling is that there is at least as much coverage of LoL as there is of Starcraft (Kotaku, for instance, has fairly regular coverage of both), at least in English-language press. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and say keep then. Fieari (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy google search turns up Daily Dot and The Score about him in particular, not to mention all the coverage he has gotten as a part of SKT. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoy. Also, I'm not certain what the article creator being a sock puppet has to do with the article notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2016 (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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FREAKAZOiD

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

Professional Counter-Strike player who made some minor news due to an in-game incident, and was eventually dropped from his team after "disappointing performances". Google hits for 'Freakazoid Counter-Strike' include basically these two news items - fails to establish notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:GNG and WP:1E. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mention at Cloud9_(esports)#Counter-Strike as he is most prominent for this incident, which is covered there. All other hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are passing mentions—nothing in depth on his play. czar 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I can see that, but I certainly don't think he's the primary topic for Freakazoid, unless you want to literally use his goofy capitalization scheme currently used in the article as the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would normalize the capitalization before redirecting its contents, yes. Note to closer: The Daily Dot links are down right now, otherwise I'd comment on them. When I searched the same website earlier, I did not find enough coverage apart from C9 to warrant a separate article. I'm also not confident about the reliability of sites like TheScore and PVP. czar 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if there's eventually a consensus to redirect this page, we may as well just delete it instead, since it would be an WP:XY that could equally point to Cloud9 or Echo Fox. (this is not a vote, just to be clear)--Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect later if wished, there's still nothing actually convincing of both a current and future substantially convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess this is just a matter of principle, but I believe the sources that cover this subject are enough to meet WP:GNG. It's also not a WP:1E because there is notability outside of the bullying incident, as the sources suggest.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there that covered him in significant detail about things not related to his incident of being caught bullying someone else? All the significant coverage seems to be about that than anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are stories about him being dropped from C9 (unrelated to bullying incident), being picked up by Splyce and Echo Fox and a couple of interviews from reliable sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral. I did some searching (admittedly, not a huge amount). What I'm seeing is mostly hits for Freakazoid!. Those that look like they are for the subject of this article all totally unsuitable as sources; a gaming wiki, and things like twitter and youtube. The onus is on Prisencolin to present specific sources and explain why they are sufficient, not just assert that they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot, ESPN, Yahoo, and Breitbart News are a reliable sources. PVP Live should be, but I suppose I'll need to double check. There have been discussions about TheScore eSports and it may or may not be a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the quick reply. I'll go along with the Breitbart article; it seems to be a reasonable publication (not NY Times quality, but certainly having some editorial control) and the article cited is clearly more than a passing mention. So, that's one source. I'm not finding the Daily Dot citation, however, can you supply a direct URL? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several articles [1] [2] [3] and more from google search--Prisencolin (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to admit, the Daily Dot sources you present do seem to meet the letter of our requirements for WP:RS (the first one has WP:1E issues, but the others don't). Still, I'm having a hard time with this. One thought is that I just can't see that covering a professional gamer as a legitimate encyclopedia topic (although, I freely admit that's already a lost cause). Another thought is that I'm having trouble with a source which describes itself as The ultimate destination for original reporting on Internet culture and life online. A big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia is that it's (way) too much focused on pop culture, current events, and things which are easily researchable on-line. In some senses, we've become a blog dressed up in encyclopedia drag, and using sources like The Daily Dot just reinforces that. So, I'm going to remain neutral on this (call it IAR Neutral if you must). But, thank you Prisencolin for responding to my queries. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles shown by Prisencolin seem enough for this to pass the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prospect of discussing notability guidelines for eSports subjects like this has recently been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, where contributors here may wish to add their thoughts. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. eSports is an area we seriously need to look into (see my comment above). An issue we have on some online issues is that we look at source names and use them as a rationale to keep, rather than source contents. I fail to see how any of the coverage is significant beyond the eSports community, and that is the important thing. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (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 speedy Inappropriate while DRV is underway. It is inappropriate to start an AfD discussion while the DRV is still underway. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrigan

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

Requesting AfD in place of a WP:A7 speedy deletion, there is also a WP:DRV going on at the moment but no concensus there Prisencolin (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2016 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 00:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karrigan

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

E-sports player. Was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but is now submitted for discussion to determine notability per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 7. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 06:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing for his own notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep esports, DR.dk, and Daily Dot make 3 independent RS'es, so WP:GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm familiar with Karrigan, as he is an old name in the esports scene. However, this article doesn't really clarify why he's notable at this point. Shore this up with better sources, as apparently a Danish source says he has a reputation as a fierce in-game leader. If there can be more than that to prove that he's truly worthy of being included, I'd be open to considering a positive vote. Just, at the moment, this subject matter comes across as rather dubious. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep. Consistent high level finishes at top CS:GO events as the team's in game leader means there should be enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. Will work on this after I get back from weekend travel. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in DR.dk, Sport1, L33t Magazine, Aftonbladet, and Daily Dot is plenty for WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prisencolin; meets WP:GNG with a multitude of reliable, independent and in-depth coverage. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rekkles

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

I do not believe that "e-athletes" are notable unless they pass the GNG. Being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot, which tells "untold stories unfolding online" (in other words, they tell what wasn't notable enough to be picked up by real reliable sources), does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already included a newspaper article all about him, in Aftonbladet, and extended mentions in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I found further news coverage and fully identified everything so it's now easier to evaluate the coverage, which does meet GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvadottir, the "extended mention" in USA Today is about ten sentences. Expressen gives him three sentences. The Wall Street Journal article is the only that can be said to say something a bit substantial about him. Being interviewed in Aftonbladet surely is something, but whether it is extensive coverage--it is if your standards are pretty low and and oriented toward trendworthy topics. So, sorry, but while I appreciate the effort, I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: I'm going to ask you to look again. I count 5 major-media articles about Rekkles in the article right now. (I found and added 2 more after posting here, and when I started typing this, the only edit after mine was to the categories.) Admittedly Aftonbladet 2014-10-24 cites Reddit as its source, and is partly about somebody else, but it's headlined about Rekkles and was written to report what he's doing. Admittedly also, the Expressen article is short (and that's a tabloid), but it's all about Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2015-08-24 is mostly interview, but again, it was written to update us on Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2016-06-19, which as you noted was in Xender Lourdes' search results, is not substantially an interview, and I'll be adding it to the article if someone else doesn't—I suspect Google didn't show it to me because it's so new. To offset the gradual impression that he's just a favorite with Aftonbladet's writers, there's also Nyheter24 2014-01-24 (brief article all about Rekkles and self-made video)—and Sveriges Radio 2012-11-27 is an article about him with a 9-minute interview recording embedded. That's a lot of coverage in several important outlets, and I think the date range—from late in 2012 to halfway through 2016—also speaks to genuine notability. I can't read the German source to see how much of it is about Rekkles because I'm not going to disable AdBlock. And I don't know how reliable a source The Score eSports.com is, but that again is an article about his team where the hook for the article is Rekkles. Add to those the fact he's among those mentioned prominently in the USA Today and WSJ articles, and I am seeing a constant stream of coverage in independent reliable sources, a lot of which is extended coverage and the breadth of the rest of which is non-trivial. So regardless of my opinion of his line of work or of news outlets' strategies to get clicks (I note with respect that Aftonbladet tends to post English translations as an alternative to the Swedish), I do believe he meets our general notability standard as written. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S.Keep Drmies.... b4... Lourdes 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Xender Lourdes, you can "BEFORE" me all you want, but all you are presenting is a Google search, and WP:GOOGLEHITS. But, if you like, in order: [forg1ven-was-losing-rekkles-niels someone mentions him on an ESPN page] (link screwed up because of square brackets in URL title), he has a Twitter feed, he is mentioned on a blog in a three-sentence long press release, he gets a five-paragraph interview in a Swedish paper, the first reliable and independent source in your list, [http://www.gamingesports.com/actualidad-esports/league-of-legends/rekkles-sobre-yellowstar-estamos-mas-juntos-que-nunca/ here's four sentences from a gaming blog, God knows who reprinted these four sentences but it doesn't look like a newspaper/site, and here's another blog. I can go on, but WP:RS please. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called a "blog", but Blog of Legends is owned by Time Inc., the same holdings company for Time Magazine.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply you've placed. May I apologise if my one line keep statement above came out a tad negatively? I did not intend that. I respect your experience, views and discretion considerably. I linked to the google hits (a first for me too in all my Afd discussions till date) to simply perhaps nudge you (wrongly done to an experienced editor, now that I think of it) to the fact that the google search would have thrown up absolutely reliable sources (two mentioned by Yngvadottir above and another a WSJ foreign language edition) and significant interviews like this and this. Add the WSJ stuff and you have to give credit to the coverage. If we are not going to consider these as significant coverages, then I fear we are setting standards too high and being judgemental about each and every topic in nsports. My apologies once more for the earlier one line statement. This is a strong keep as per me. Thanks. Lourdes 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xender, no problem, thank you for your note. I continue to disagree, however, with you, and I do not wish to lower our notability standards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if this article is kept, there will need to be a serious evaluation of all esports articles, as there are hundreds that require urgent attention, as they're collectively not up to par with Wikipedia's standards. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthBotto: I have just raised your concern at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure when the WSJ and USA Today became "being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot," and the characterization may be a bit disingenuous. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Draft instead because, while these articles have been starting noticeably numerously, there's still questionability for several, and it's best to be careful with these. I suggest this one be removed for now as there's still not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided and linked to above indicate that he is one of the best League players for his position and that that he passes WP:BASIC and probably WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous reliable sources as pointed out above, and also appeared as in a WP:PRINT source.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2016 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FORG1VEN

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

An eSports competitor whose coverage appears to be limited to niche eSports websites and the eSports sub-section of ESPN. The article is very poor and there appears to be no real assertion to notability. eSports subjects are contentious and being one of the better players (according to the article, completely unsourced) does not for me assert notability. Google does throw up results for his name, more so than some eSports subjects here, but it's specialist stuff and forums mainly and he's had no substantial coverage via reliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion on the notability of eSports subjects is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, and this was an article raised as an example of the inherent question marks over the content.
Keep The article needs a lot of work, but there is plenty of information on this player. Played competitively for a number of teams, competed in a number of large tournaments. I'm not sure why esports related sources are apparently being challenged as not WP:RS on the topic of esports. They constitute the media coverage or the subject. It's not as of a few particular League of Legends players are excluded from the League peered reviewed journal because there was better things to publish. TimothyJosephWood 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about why they're being challenged, at least by me: It's because it's not clear they're indicative of significant coverage or reliable sources for establishing notability. Any area of interest has websites and magazines dedicated to it, but usually those don't mean anything for the bigger picture of inclusion criteria. My view, at the least, is that most eSports sources are good for backing up the odd statistic but not evidence of substantial coverage under WP:GNG and other general criteria. KaisaL (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From searching, it would appear that this player's only apparent claims to notability reside with them leaving H2k-Gaming and facing a ban. If this page is fixed up with good sources and the context of notability, I'll change my vote to keep. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: After a week, I have returned to this article and find it to be solid enough to warrant a keep. The career achievements are present with some decent sourcing. This isn't to say I'll hold this opinion with all the articles in question right now, but this one has a pass in my book. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The ESPN source given in the article seems to be a good one, but the other is simply a casual mention of the sort debarred by WP:ROUTINE. If Timothyjosephwood believes there are many qualifying sources, why haven't they been presented? Ravenswing 13:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of events, and does not use the words "debarred" or "casual mention". One of the points of WP:SUSTAINED is that a group of sources can pass WP:GNG and still fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. WP:IRS allows that generally reliable sources can be unreliable in the context, but your argument here is to discount for WP:GNG notability based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This logic is inverted, as well as has referenced the incorrect Wikilink. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of third party sources covering the subject in significant detail. There's also very little content present either - even if sources are found, would probably be better served as a redirect to his team or something until there's a significant expansion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you bold the word "delete"? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, re-read the first sentence of my last comment? What kind of question is that? Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question that says that your !vote appears to have made an argument for redirect/merge (non-notable) without an argument for WP:DEL8. Do you have an argument for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems to be a theme forming above that the article is in poor shape and so should be deleted. I would remind that this is not a legitimate criteria for deletion per WP:DEL. I am looking into sources and intend to address all three of the concurrent AfDs in time. I have begun with Lustboy (for no particular reason) and have made a number of edits to the article today. Since I seem to be the only person attempting to do this, I supposed we'll just have to be patient. TimothyJosephWood 19:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blatantly misrepresent your opposition like that. All three people who have !voted delete cited a lack of reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail. Ironically, its you who keeps saying things like "sources are out there" without presenting any that cover the subject in significant detail. It takes more than "assurances" to convince people most of the time at AFD... Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part about "blatant". The policy "WP:DEL" was cited, a point which does not appear in your response. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really follow what you're driving at. If it was meant to invoke a response from me, please clarify. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invoke a response? The response I want to evoke, if any, is called a policy-based discussion. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't blatantly misrepresent the nomination. "He's had no substantial coverage via reliable sources" is a perfectly damn valid deletion ground, and certainly more valid a stance than you advocating keeping the article based on zero actual evidence of reliable sources. As far as patience goes, the AfD closes on the 11th. I'd advise against being "patient" up until that date. Ravenswing 21:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No need for personal attacks; I said that if this subject matter has content presented that shows that they're notable and with reliable sources that compound said notability, I'll be happy to vote to keep. That being said, I've researched this subject matter and have thus far come across very little beyond the H2k-related business and their Riot ban. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources to the article and encourage all voters to take another look at the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and nothing that has been added convinces me that FORG1VEN meets WP:GNG or our criteria as a whole per my previous comments. KaisaL (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional event that you should consider, the fact that he got deferment from mandatory military service in Greece. Surely this doesn't happen everyday.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search suggests that this is very common - temporary deferment can be for anything from university studies to siblings with a relative in the armed forces already. It's certainly not a major event and if it was it would have received far wider verifiable coverage via Greek newspapers and the like. I can't accept this is a valid claim to encyclopedic notability. KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how much of this is about deferment generally and not about a particular person being deferred for a particular reason, covered in sources about that individual? TimothyJosephWood 02:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does seem that Greek military service deferment is very common. However that doesn't invalidate the fact that the media, including ESPN and SB Nation, seemed to make a bit deal of the story.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were both fleeting mentions that don't come close to clearing the GNG. Ravenswing 03:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I haven't misrepresented anyone or made any personal attacks. What I have said is that there are three concurrent AfDs that I intend to address and unfortunately I cannot to all of them at the same time. A look at my history will show that I have been active in the area and I seek to inform that I can only do one thing at a time, but the issue has my attention. There is WP:NODEADLINE. TimothyJosephWood 02:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You literally accused editors of !voting "delete" because of the article's poor shape, when, objectively, nobody cited "poor shape" of the article. That's undeniably misrepresentation. It's one thing to disagree, but if you are fundamentally unable to understand other's stances, then please just don't bother addressing it at all. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If this page is fixed up with good sources" sounds a lot like article critique and not NOTE, as does "very little content present either". Maybe I have interpreted incorrectly. TimothyJosephWood 03:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have. The focus continues to be reliable, third party sources that cover the subject in significant detail. My "little content present" comment is in reference to the precedent of redirecting articles that may be notable have very little content present. It's a common redirect/merge stance where there's a target that does, or could, discuss the subject briefly, when very little content can be sourced to references. Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you !voted Delete to get the article redirected/merged? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was !voting "delete", while leaving the option out there for redirect/merge if better sources had been found and that was the only way to reach consensus. That's why I start off with "even if" in my initial comment. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage an enough sources previously deemed reliable by the community. There is no single event for this person to be deemed a WP:1E for, so it should otherwise pass WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Youre supposed to be identifying yourself as the article creator in these discussions, I believe. Sergecross73 msg me 02:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There should probably just a parameter in the AfD template that does this automatically. I might bring this up somewhere.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed by these new sources, as it happens. Two are fleeting mentions of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability, and I'm unsure upon what basis you call iDigitalTimes (which doesn't have its own article) a source "deemed reliable by the community." Which community would that be? Ravenswing 03:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the Daily Dot and ESPN articles. iDigitalTimes doesn't have an article, but its publisher IBT Media does, so I may have a chance at being a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in this context I am supposed to comment that I started, as a redirect, the article IBT Media. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of events, and doesn't use the word "debarred". Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In Ravenwing's defense, there is a line in WP:SPORTCRIT that recommends that individual sportspeople have notability outside WP:ROUTINE coverage in order to have a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And unfixed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ESPN notes that "FORG1VEN is still considered the best western AD carry of all time by many analysts and experts among the scene" and calls him "Europe's best AD carry". This position of prominence in the game plus significant coverage from ESPN, IGN, and other reliable e-sports coverage is certainly good enough for WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with option for a merge discussion on the talk page of the article There is general agreement that reliable sources exist and that this is part of a larger topic, and that within this larger topic the BLP here would have WP:DUE weight. This means that the discussion here, as per WP:Deletion policy is a content dispute, and the issue of notability is a matter for the content contributors to determine on the talk page of the article. For further policy information, see WP:INSIGNIFICANCE.
Further, WP:HEY mention should be given for the difference between the article at the time of AfD nomination and the article now. Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've still noticeably been questionable about accepting these articles as there seems to be questionability about clear acceptance, I'm not seeing anything else particularly convincing and we should be careful adding these or else we may have loads of work later, examining and questioning them. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 12 July 2016 (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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allu (gamer)

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

An eSports player with no real assertion to notability beyond niche interests. Fails WP:GNG. Notably, unlike some eSports subjects on Wikipedia, he hasn't even won anything - and just appears to be a typical run-of-the-mill professional player. Also a lack of reliable sources, as much of it is eSports specific sites and The Daily Dot, which is disputed as an appropriate source for asserting notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He certainly does not fail WP:GNG as he was on the cover of Urheilulehti a few months ago, and there are plenty of articles about him in Finland's largest circulation newspapers.[4][5][6] Prolog (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prolog: Is there evidence of him being on the cover? If there is then ~~I would be happy to agree with you~~ changed to weak delete instead, this is exactly the sort of coverage we need. KaisaL (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is available online. Prolog (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am going to change to weak delete - but still a delete - if that's ok. I'm not convinced there's enough beyond that, and while being on the cover of that magazine is certainly an achievement, it's a single example from an albeit long-established magazine with a circulation of 31,000 as of 2014 and only about 6,000 followers on Twitter. (I appreciate the latter of this is not a reliable metric in itself, but it says to me that this isn't the major magazine it may have initially seemed to be.) But at the same time it's a better source than most eSports content is throwing up. Yet as Ravenswing says below, we're dealing in casual mentions the rest of the time. So lots of flip sides but overall I'd say not quite enough. KaisaL (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urheilulehti was the most read sports magazine in Finland in 2014.[7] I don't know how many subscribers you expect for a non-general magazine written in a language spoken by about five million people, and published in the country with the heaviest library use per capita. I also don't understand how anyone can call this 1000-word article on the subject published by Helsingin Sanomat a "casual mention". Prolog (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, but I've just gone over those sources, and I'm not seeing anything that clears WP:ROUTINE, never mind that two of them involve casual mentions. Ravenswing 13:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you applying Wikipedia:Notability (events) to a person? Prolog (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find, as you become more familiar with AfD, that WP:ROUTINE is, well, routinely applied to issues of press coverage for biographical articles. Ravenswing 17:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can indeed confirm users have applied their favourite guidelines, whether relevant or not, in AFDs for at least a decade. That doesn't mean such application needs to carry much weight, particularly if more established concerns are satisfied. Regardless, you should explain what is "routine" about an esports player being the cover story in a 118-year-old sports magazine. Prolog (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even I wasn't aware of the extent of coverage for this person in Finnish newspapers and magazines--Prisencolin (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prolog's sources. Obviously passes GNG given the Finnish coverage, arguably would have passed WP:BASIC without them. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per basic. --Usp (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There are no problems with notability here. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:15, 12 July 2016 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lustboy

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

An eSports player with no notable coverage beyond niche sites and sub-sections dedicated to the field. He did win a competition as a "support player", but this win is a case of WP:BLP1E and I am not convinced that being part of an eSports team that wins a competition justifies an individual article. Additionally, all of the references are to The Daily Dot, which is a contentious source and its reliability is disputed. Most of the content online is eSports related cruft from unreliable sources. KaisaL (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A discussion on the notability of eSports subjects is ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, and this was an article raised as an example of the inherent question marks over the content. KaisaL (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about a lot of the other e-sports figured nomd today, but this one should meet GNG easily. He played for two years on one of the top North American League of Legends teams, and played for two other top Korean teams. There's plenty of coverage out there, a lot of it may be "niche" but it's a niche subject. Incidentally, he was recently covered by ESPN for his role as a coach of Longzhu. TimothyJosephWood 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does just playing for "top teams" assert notability, though? Apologies if this could sound a little bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but eSports is not soccer or baseball, so I'm not sure simply being part of a team counts. We have no established precedent either way, and I'm inclined to say that you need more than being in a team and getting coverage on eSports websites, at least until this sport grows and gets more coverage beyond them. That ESPN section is a bit better, but it's very brief mentions and quotations, not exactly a full feature dedicated to him. KaisaL (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...yeah...I would say playing in the World Championship (more than once) goes a long way toward establishing notability. This is one of the, if not the most played competitive game in the world. The official World Championship admits 16 teams, and so is arguably exactly twice as exclusive as the FIFA World Cup. It also became the largest prize pool and most watched esports event in Season Two, and it's only grown since.

As I've alluded to elsewhere, I'm not sure you yet have the requisite familiarity with the topic. "Top teams" is not a subjective descriptor that needs scare quotes like "hot new artist". At least in this case, it's 100% as objective as which teams make it to the World Cup. Probably more so as TSM has not only been to Worlds, but has been to it every year since its inception.

Similarly, "support" does not need scare quotes either. It is one of five positions on a five man team and is exactly analogous to Small forward or Power forward in basketball.

I'm not trying to make a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it comes off that way, but if you don't know what a Small forward or Point guard is in basketball, a Fullback or Linebacker is in American Football, or a Support or ADC is in League of Legends, then you probably have some reading to do before you're ready to dive into substantial AfD noms or suggest major policy creation. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, comment on content, not editors. The nominator's personal knowledge on the subject is irrelevant - you do not need to be an esports enthusiast to recognize whether or not a subject has been covered in significant detail by reliable, third party sources. Please don't move the discussion into this "I'm more of an expert than you on this so listen to me" type of direction. Providing sources (or noting a lack-thereof) will get you much farther in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have hesitated thus far to reference WP:CIR, because it is often used pejoratively, but I use it in this sense to mean the good spirit of the essay, someone who is 100% acting in good faith but who is outside their subject area. There are currently 24 sources for the article. I have worked most of the day to improve them. TimothyJosephWood 03:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've been right to be hesitant, as its wildly inappropriate to cite CIR in this discussion. That's usually used in the context of referring to someone who doesn't seem to have the capacity to understand how to write an encyclopedia. You're dealing with an Administrator with 10 years experience who made a policy-based nomination you don't agree with. Not even close to CIR. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to, per your comment on my talk page too, agree to disagree on this Timothy. Debates on AFD should not be exclusive to card-carrying experts, just like editing a topic is not exclusive to experts, particularly as there can be a degree of subject bias if they are. You have alluded to the FIFA World Cup, for example, and stated that the competition Lustboy competes in is twice as exclusive and the most-watched eSports event; This misses the fact that world eSports competitions are nowhere near as important or widely covered as the World Cup in football. Perspectives from both experts and outsiders are very much welcome at AFD because it's about establishing a consensus on notability per the presence, reliability and significance of sources on a general encyclopedia. KaisaL (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not one scrap of proof has been proffered suggesting that the subject can meet the GNG. I did read the ESPN source Timothyjosephwood posted above, and I can't imagine how he thinks that supports notability. First off, the only mention of the subject is in quotes from him, which explicitly can't be used to support the notability of him. Secondly, that's routine, casual coverage of the sort explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Would anyone like to proffer multiple reliable, independent sources that provide "significant coverage" to the subject? Ravenswing 13:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources present do not indicate meeting the WP:GNG through significant coverage through reliable sources. Emphasis on the "significant coverage" part - the ESPN source is a very short article that contains even less information about the subject himself. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest going to Google, typing "Lustboy" and hitting go? Maybe clicking the News search link automatically generated at the top of the page? Maybe instead someone here could go read WP:BEFORE. TimothyJosephWood 14:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er..."Lustboy" isn't exactly the type of thing I like typing into search engines. BEFORE is something you'd want to direct towards a nominator, not really anyone else. Regarding my stance, I'd reconsider if better sources are provided. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Perhaps you could be troubled to do the work yourself. You're asserting that just because who he is, Lustboy must be notable by definition. The burden is yours to prove it. I suggest that it is more productive for you to do so than to insinuate that any editors who disagree with you are lazy and/or clueless for not doing the work you are declining to do yourself. Ravenswing 16:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough sources for this topic, and current consensus is that these particular sources are reliable. We're also not even talking about Korean language sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well there goes my evening. (edit conflict) I've rewritten basically the entire article. I started to give up when I got to the tourney history and just shot-gun-blasted {{cn}} as placeholders for where I need to find sources for results.

The notability question for me, as someone who is familiar, boils down to the fact that he played for Team SoloMid. They're not just almost certainly the top North American team, (Counter Logic Gaming is the only close competition), but they are historically the top team, and are the only ones to play in Worlds every year since its inception. Compare articles for Dyrus or WildTurtle, who were contemporaries of Lustboy's. If WP:NFOOTY can be used an an analogy, then playing for TSM is basically auto-notability in LoL esports. He's also Korean, started out in the Korean scene, came the the US, and then returned. It's a bigger more competitive deal in Korea. (There is no discussion like this going on at the Korean WP.)

A lot of the sources may be "niche", or however you want to classify them. But there's plenty of them, and when it all boils down, even niche sources don't give a crap about you unless you're a global player. I actually do follow a few up-and-comers like Huzzy, but you can't find anything like this on him, because he isn't a world-stage player. Lustboy is.

Finally, to whomever didn't want to google Lustboy...no, you don't get porn. Yes, you get almost all esports content and apparently one guy in the UK who went to jail over kids. Yes, it's almost certainly a Korean-English translation issue. TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've checked out the rewritten article and my opinion personally hasn't changed. I don't believe there's such a thing as "auto-notability" for eSports by means of playing for a team, because the sport isn't major enough at this time, making WP:NFOOTY a bad analogy in my view. All of my other views have been detailed previously, and in spite of the additional sources those still stand. A couple of source comments: This Gamespot one gives him a passing mention in a list in an article about somebody else, this mostly consists of an aggregation of Reddit quotes, this ESPN one does not load at all and this one gives him the most trivial of mentions in an article about the team. So while they may not be unreliable sources per se, the coverage isn't substantial or often even primarily about Lustboy. And also, many of the sources in general do more to demonstrate the relevance of the teams, as the coverage of him personally is trivial. I know you won't agree with me but that's very much a part of AFD debates. KaisaL (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't load at all? Have you tried turning it off and back on again? Works fine for me. TimothyJosephWood 10:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep addressing the reliability and niche status of sources, but the recurring issue seems to be that, regardless of the status, they aren't discussing the subject in significant detail. Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things were addressed in the original nom: That they only have won one competition, and that all of the references are to a single source. Both of these have been addressed. There are two dozen sources generally, and even with the sources needed for competition wins, there are a half dozen at least already provided to alleviate this concern. TimothyJosephWood 03:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the sources here that are RS's and cover the subject in significant detail. It seems every time you allude to "all these sources" I spot check some and see they are sources that mention the name in passing and nothing else. I'd like to see what you think significant coverage is. Sergecross73 msg me 03:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the currently nine sources that mention him by name in the title? TimothyJosephWood 03:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume you'd want to direct me to the good ones, since every time I spot check on my own, I find that they're lacking in some capacity. Your Yahoo News source, for example. It mentions him by name, but 95% of the article is about the team owner, Andrew Dinh, talking about himself and the team - talking about announcing things too early, being careful on social media, etc. Very little of it is actually about "Lustboy" himself. Sergecross73 msg me 03:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite close to done with the whole thing emotionally. I've already gotten frustrated a couple of times and I don't edit WP to feel frustrated.

Having said that, this is what the current sources establish:

Played as a starter for multiple professional teams who, at the time, were ranked as the top or one of the top teams in their region
Received media coverage for both their transfer to and retirement from the top North American Team
Competed in and won the top Korean competition as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in and won the top North American competition as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in and was semi and quarter finalist the top global competition for his field as a starting member of a professional team
Competed in multiple additional regional and international competitions as a starting member of a professional team
Was individually ranked twelfth in the world based on performance in the 2014 World championship
Was individually ranked fourth and fifth in North America based on performance in two metrics at the region's top competition

Anything remotely resembling the notability criteria for sports is a slam dunk. The person's claim to notoriety is as a competitive member of this club, and these are the top achievements that a person in this field can accomplish. If these are insufficient to establish notability then the individual is categorically disqualified, because the coverage of the person concerns his achievements in his field, because that is why he is notable.

If this is the case then I'm not going spend any more time arguing over or trying improve this or the other nominated articles. The most relevant sources are the ones that establish these metrics because these performances are the reason the person is even considered for an article.

If these suffice then I will continue improving this and the other articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has arisen across a number of these discussions, there's no "WP:NESPORTS" or "WP:NGAMER", guidelines like there are things like WP:NSONG or WP:NFILM, so they only way to prove notability is going to be to provide a bunch of sources that are considered reliable and significant coverage. I've been trying to assume good faith here, but am I to interpret your continued resistance to provides such sources here at the AFD page as a sign that said sources don't exist? It seems like you've attempted everything except for the typical approach of just listing off sources here at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said a number of times, Timothy, there is no consensus that just competing - or indeed winning - professional eSports competitions as part of a team is a reason for that individual to be have their own encyclopedia article. You raised WP:NFOOTY previously, and compared an eSports competition to the FIFA World Cup; This to me completely misses the point that eSports is still a growing, niche interest. So just being a competitor for me isn't enough, and is why I have argued to delete here. Your list only strengthens my views because it feels like you're completely clutching at straws with a list of statistics that only serve to suggest he may have competed for notable eSports teams. None of this is reliable, significant coverage of him personally. I think we're going around in circles on that issue though because clearly you're debating this as if there's a clear precedent to give eSports professional articles on competition achievements alone. I could understand that argument maybe for an individual competition, but this is team competition, and team competitions without significant coverage than even puts them in the same postcode (zip code) as established team sports like football, baseball and hockey. KaisaL (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to establish the above are in the article. The list includes many of the most significant achievements at all possible in the field.

I actually feel like I'm pretty well getting the point, and why this has been so frustrating. If the person's notability is tied to these achievements, and the majority of coverage is therefore about these achievements, and yet the sources and the coverage are both disqualified because they are esports, then the person is categorically disqualified from notability, and no further argument is possible. If that is the standard then the conversation is over, and probably very nearly 100% of the existing articles on esports participants should be nominated for deletion. TimothyJosephWood 14:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Timothyjosephwood's fine addition of sourcing to the article - although I would point out that the original stub was quite a young article and it too had sources, if far fewer. Yes, the sourcing is to largely to websites / e-zines that cover eSports, but the same is true of vanilla sports players being largely covered only in sports sources. WP:GNG is basically "do 3rd party reliable sources exist", and yes, they do. If expanded to some 1st-party sources, I imagine the sourcing well gets even deeper.

As a side note, it was mentioned already, but putting "support player" in quotes is like putting "third baseman" in quotes. It doesn't mean "random guy on staff", it's a position. Granted, sometimes some weird subculture sets up their own walled garden on Wikipedia, and it falls to random other editors to weed it - but in this particular case, there really are sources, so it's a legit topic. SnowFire (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Timothyjosephwood's great edits. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also believe there's still not enough convincingly confident for his own actual notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - borderline, but I believe TJW has introduced enough sources to show that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is overdue for an administrator to assess, I point out that there's been 5 arguments to keep and 4 arguments to delete. While it isn't a !vote, this is a long thread and so I figured it's worth noting down some numbers. I also note that most of the arguments to keep have come from individuals that are heavily involved with eSports content; This isn't a problem in itself, but might be noteworthy in your close or relist decision. KaisaL (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a sort of closing argument I suppose, since KaisaL and myself seem to be the main proponents here. First, ~~the fact~~ that many involved here ~~are~~ may be part of e-sports editing (not really including myself prior to the past couple of weeks), is may be probably unremarkable. I would expect those from MilHist to be well represented at related AfDs (and would be disappointed if they weren't). Second, I believe the article currently contains significant coverage in secondary sources, which, although being involved in the production of esports related content, are independent of the teams as well as Riot Games. Finally, to dismiss coverage in outlets related to esports ipso facto, presumes categorical non-notability, and precludes the application of, rather than enforces WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood 22:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others except for Prisencolin, but I wouldn't count myself as "heavily involved with eSports content". While I do have more familarlity than most people with the area, I've basically never edited those topics before they started popping up in the AfD queues this past week. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @KaisaL: I'm not involved in eSports content at all, and merely saw this advertised on WP:VG talk. (I am roughly familiar with eSports... and I have no doubt there do exist some eSports articles that are basically impossible to reference. You just happen to have taken aim at one of the 2 or 3 most notable eSports out there in League of Legends, where there really are a ton of third-party references for it, even for non top-tier players.). SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to fit notability and have adequate sources per WP:GNG. Asdklf; (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2016 (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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy (video gamer)

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

An eSports player, not clear that he passes WP:GNG and has had a notability tag since May. There's a huge pile of sources, but they're all from the same websites and none of them are reliable sources, and most of them are heavily dedicated to niche interest. The vast majority of content in the article is detail about his eSports activities with a ton of red links. He has won a couple of competitions but I am not satisfied that this alone asserts notability. KaisaL (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nomination alludes to, the sourcing is a bit misleading, with most sources not looking to be an WP:RS, or barely mention the subject himself at all - passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Star player of a team that won two CS:GO Majors and reached the final of another, the highest level in the esport. Gets coverage in mainstream sources like L'Express: [8]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this is a bad argument, I note having translated the link you've given that he's one of a team being interviewed and there's no actual write-up about him. This doesn't confer his individual notability, at best it supports that of the team and potentially merging any viable information into that article. KaisaL (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Combined with widely available reports reporting from sources likely ESPN, Daily Dot, and other esports, plus his stature as the captain of a former #1 team in one of the biggest esports in the world would be enough IMHO for it to meet WP:BASIC.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Likely" ESPN etc? In short, you don't actually know one way or another? Sorry, but qualifying sources providing "significant coverage" to the subject (as opposed to casual mentions among a bunch of other guys) is what meets the GNG, not these WP:ROUTINE fleeting mentions, and if you think that L'Express link constitutes qualifying coverage, I urge you to review WP:GNG. Failing anyone providing those sources -- as opposed to blithely assuming they must exist -- make mine Delete. Ravenswing 13:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just like it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major sports figure in publications covering that sport, it's likely you would find extensive coverage of a major e-sports figure in publications covering that e-sport. A Google News search of Happy EnVyUs CSGO gets 636 hits and a Google News search of Happy LDLC CSGO gets 176]. Many of these are in passing, but there is enough in-depth coverage specifically focused on Happy (some examples of which I've added to the article) to pass WP:BASIC, which says that even if there is a lack of sources with deep coverage, extensive non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources can also be used to demonstrate notability.

The point of using the L'Express source is that people tend to vote to delete esports players no matter how much coverage they get from reliable, e-sports coverage, if mainstream sources don't cover them (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD. Since a mainstream source like L'Express chose to interview him, it brings legitemacy to the idea that maybe he should have an article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What brings legitimacy to a person having an article is receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. I really don't give a damn whether someone's name is dropped in the Times of London or the Washington Post -- if he does not receive significant coverage, then the sources do not support the notability of the subject. Period. Ravenswing 03:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are also per Ravenswing. When significant reliable coverage dedicated to the individual (not their team) is raised I am happy to consider - hence my shift to a weak delete on Allu's concurrent AFD. KaisaL (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in reliable sources as well as mainstream, presumably print sources like L'Express. [9] The L'express article is a interview with Happy and teammate KennyS, and even though it's not entirely about him the fact that it's a mainstream print news magazine means it gives the subject a lot more merit.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A mainstream news article that makes it clear that Happy's play for EnVyUs had made them arguably the best team in the world at the time. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 14:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is not enough in sources to prove independent notability outside of a team. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2016 (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. joe decker ^talk 22:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wuxx

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

Previous discussion ended early as a speedy delete because the creator was a banned user. It was restored by User:Graeme Bartlett at User:Prisencolin's request. Not a notable person, and no outside information. JDDJS (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am expecting User:Prisencolin to improve the article to show that it has clear notability, but at this point he has only added a category. I would recommend that there is no speedy delete in this case, let the AFD run for the full period. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not Notable. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 03:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is in fact sourced and informative but it's still questionable for an actual solid independently notable article. There's nothing particularly better thus Delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 21 June 2016 (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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smite World Championship 2016

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

I'm not sure about the notability of this tournament. Among the sources, the Fox Sports one is significant coverage but I'm more iffy about the PC gamer one. I don't know if Kotaku is considered a reliable source for notability purposes. It's also kind of strange that Smite World Championship remains a red link while this year is not. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources covering this event, as you just mentioned. I just created the Smite World Championship page after seeing the AfD, just for disclosure.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- PC Gamer is considered a reliable source at WP:VGRS--Prisencolin (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant WP:RS coverage per above. Smartyllama (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smite World Championship and expand. I'm not sure if the individual years are warranted at this point, as though the prize pools are considerable, the coverage isn't comparable to the Dota or League of Legends championships, which do warrant individual articles... but only after several years of tournaments and major coverage. At this point for Smite, however? I don't see it. However, I do stress that the general World Championships article has potential, so let's put the materials there are expand that. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a bad idea. I'm not going to change my vote but I might vote to merge if that discussion is ever opened.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can live with that. However, mergers aren't for AFD discussions so I guess I'll withdraw my deletion proposal and we can further discuss whether to just put the separate years into the main article is and until there's enough that's worth spinning off. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2016 (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 speedy Back to userspace. Let's cut the chase -- I'm closing this as a speedy IAR back to userspace and I'll FPP the mainspace title to avoid it being moved back out of drafting by someone who is less-than-fully-aware of the circumstances. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MonteCristo

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

This was deleted at AfD just a month ago, userfied after a trip through DRV, immediately moved to draft space, and the resubmitted with only the addition of a few very dubious sources (twitter and random esports blogs). I don't see how any of the objections at the original AfD were met by this new draft. The article in thisisgame.com is in Korean, which I don't read, but from the auto-translation, appears to be an interview, which is not a reliable secondary source. Another non-article in the daily dot. And so on. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the AfC was denied by one editor, but then subsequently accepted by another within a span of a day, without satisfying the suggestions of the first. Do you think we can just close this and send the article back into draftspace?--Prisencolin (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to other contributors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 June 29: @DGG, Jclemens, Thincat, Hut 8.5, JDDJS, Davey2010, and Stifle: See, this is why I think that "delete" means "delete" and not "userfy", and why I decline to userfy deleted content if no good reason is provided to make me believe that it will be ready for mainspace soon. All it produces is usually this sort of time-wasting exercise with several runs through the deletion process because some editors either don't understand or have no interest in complying with our inclusion requirements. – Concerning the article itself, I am not interested enough in the topic to form an opinion. Sandstein 06:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met. Interviews conducted by RS'es are perfectly acceptable as sources. ESPN covers the guy. I don't see what the issue is here. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet NSPORTS-- we have always regarded being a coach as less significant than being an player. The article is essentially promotional for his activities. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sandstein abut time wasting though I still think the userfy was appropriate. Does WP:CSD#G4 not apply? You need to read G4 very (excessively?) strictly for the intervening userfy to rule it out. On the other matter, no, different AFC reviewers may well take differing views. All this merry-go-round is tantamount to a quick recreation after an AFD delete without significant improvement. The DRV endorsed the AFD deletion and there is no reason to review all that for a second time. Thincat (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a fucking waste of time! - I (like many others) expected the nom to actually turn the article around and source it better ..... Anyway I'm not seeing any evidence of notability and IMHO it still fails GNG. (and I apologize Sandstein for having a moan in the last review - Now I see why you don't userfy anything), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 09:07, 11 July 2016 (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Bas Kwak

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

Good example of what a non-notable eSports article looks like. Basically no mention in recognized reliable sources. Very little claim of important other than supposedly being the best Dutch Counter-Strike player ever Prisencolin (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable eSports player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to show GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2016 (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/Thai E-Sports Association

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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Entus

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

Article about an e-sports team. The only source is a deadlink, and it's not clear to me what's notable or encyclopaedic about this topic. —S Marshall T/C 09:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the most notable Korean esports teams and sponsored by one of the largest Korean business comglomerates, CJ Group. Adding sources now. Shoutout to Drmies for doing some cleanup work.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though there is a massive quantity of esports articles worthy of deletion, this is certainly not one. CJ Entus is one of, if not the most, notable of Brood War teams. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I speak no Korean, so perhaps you gentlemen could help me out. What is reliable about this source? This source is user-generated content (see terms of use, point 5), and should be removed. It's also only tangentially about CJ Entus; it's really about an e-sports player.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is published by the Chosun Ilbo one of the most read newspapers in Korea. The second is TheScore eSports and there's been some discussion of its reliability but no chance concensus there.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Referred to WP:RSN.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DarthBotto's reasoning and S Marshall's sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:43, 1 September 2016 (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.

Q3

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. czar 00:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TeamWarfare League

AfDs for this article:

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

No appearance in reliable sources or books. No idea why the last afd had no votes- Prisencolin (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, let's avoid that here. The nominator is correct: I can't find any reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 15 July 2016 (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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase EuroCup

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

doesn't seem pass WP:NORG or appear in many reliable sources Prisencolin (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 6 August 2016 (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. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ClanBase EuroCup

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable online sports competition. Given sources do not indicate notability for the subject. Previous AfD failed for lack of participation. Subject fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG, not significant coverage etc. No idea why there was no quorum from the later AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2016 (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. czar 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Electronic Gaming

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

fails WP:GNG only appears in passing mentions or interviews--Prisencolin (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sourcing helps it meet the WP:GNG - it's all obscure esports blogs and player's personal sites. Sergecross73 msg me 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. I couldn't find any sources except for a couple gaming blogs. Definitely fails WP:GNG Joel.Miles925 17:05, 2 September 2016 (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. Sandstein 08:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thai e-Sports Association

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

doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, eSports in Thailand on the whole is not very notable. There seem to be some Thai language sources for this but they don't look reliable. Prisencolin (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article covering the subject has been published by the online arm of Thairath, Thailand's largest newspaper, though it's written by the association's acting president.[10] --Paul_012 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no independent coverage. Article cited above is not independent. Smartyllama (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an organisation, it is essential that WP:ORGDEPTH is satisfied. That is clearly lacking here. Also, sources need to be independent of the organisation or its employees. I don't see the indepth coverage in reliable and independent sources at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2016 (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. I'm closing this as 'No consensus' because it's basically a long drawn out argument between two users with no end in sight. There are suggestions for Redirect and/or Merge, so consider using the Merge Proposal process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fly (video gamer)

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most sources are mere mentions that he played a game. The only source that really covers him is Redbull.com, which is questionable as a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is the founder and captain of one of the most successful teams in Dota history, OG. The "mere mentions" that discuss this player are all within the context of OG's victories in major tournaments, which are covered by reliable sources. Additionally Redbull has generally been accepted as a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of the team (even the captain) doesn't make him inherently notable. The standard for GNG is significant coverage of him as a person. Those mere mentions of him being on a team support facts, but not notability. I've started a discussion at RSN about Redbull.com, but I couldn't find any discussion there before. If you have diffs to the discussion that showed this source is a RS, please share. Additionally, interviews are usually weak as a basis for GNG since it's really a primary source talking about himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only five players on any Dota team, and being the captain means shouldering more than 1/5 of the responsibility. Also, the notability of this player is not based solely on that random interview, which is there only to back up his interest in Krav Maga. --Prisencolin (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use speculations about the "amount of responsibility" to establish notability. That random interview is the only source that does more than talk about the fact that he played. It's the closest think you have to significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is there is plenty more significant coverage for this person, and I'll add it right now.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that doesn't make sense to you. I'll try again for you: 1) What guideline tells us to speculate about "amount of responsibility" on the team as a measure of notability? 2) I didn't say his notability was based on a random interview. I said that interview was the most significant amount of coverage, but it's him, talking about himself. 3) Articles saying he played a game isn't significant coverage. 4) If there's so much coverage, why wouldn't you put at least a little significant coverage in the article first? If it exists, you have it and didn't bother to put it in, that's exactly the opposite of what you are supposed to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't just "play a game", I don't know where you're getting that from, he played in many high profile tournaments and won two Majors. It is also significant coverage, a team is composed of its constituent members, so whenever there's an article about the team, it's also about each of its players, and this is especially true when there are literally only 5 players on a team.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Play a game"= played video games in a tournament. Just like I'd say a baseball player in the World Series "played a game". Coverage of a TEAM doesn't project notability onto individual members. We see this all the time with music groups. The group is notable, but the individual members often aren't because of a lack of significant coverage. An example would be The Korgis. Notable group, but none of the members are notable. Same with Jump 'N the Saddle Band. Every FBS college football team is notable, every player is not. Is this making sense yet? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about band members not being notable, but in pro gaming, players transfer from team to team quite frequently, and get coverage through this. There are over 100 players on a college football roster, so that analogy is not apt.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, notability isn't inherited. You don't become notable by being on a notable team, regardless of the size. You become notable for significant coverage by reliable third party sources. You're too hung up on the number of players. How about Timbaland? He and Melvin (Magoo) Barcliff were a notable act. Timbaland has sufficient coverage to warrant his own article. Magoo is a redirect to the Timbaland article because he doesn't have significant coverage. And because you're hung up on numbers, you don't see the football analogy. Individuals don't become notable by being on a notable team. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's coverage of this player independent of the team, such as http://www.redbull.com/en/esports/stories/1331801528382/esl-one-frankfurt-mvp. There's no notability inheritance going on here, because everything the team did, Fly did as well. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to stuff like "this guy is a friend of someone notable" or "this guy once worked with someone notable", being a team captain and a member of a five member squad transcends both. And also, there is no reasonable redirect for this page since he has played for several teams (eg Team Secret, compLexity Gaming, Fnatic, and OG).--Prisencolin (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well what NOTINHERITED applies to. I question if you do. What you are doing is trying to make him notable based on the fact that he's on a notable team. Notability doesn't transfer. And your newer source isn't really coverage about him, it's coverage of game play by him. In other words, if you removed all of the sentences about him playing in that single event, what would you have left about Aziz?

If it's his gameplay, then it's about him. Looking up his old tag "Simbaaa" I've found this and Daily Dot. which has been upheld many times as a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk)|

It's about the play of the team, including him. The Daily Dot piece is barely over a mention. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right it's about the team, therefore significant coverage for him. The Daily Dof article lists him in the headline, which counts more than the two paragraphs about him on the article. And also Tal Aizik has played for several such teams, so out of the scope of WP:INHERITED section about group members.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not really about him, it's about what he did in a game. If you described him grocery shopping, would that be "notable". (Went down the aisle, selected cookies, put them in the basket, decided to return to dairy section). Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like you're starting to argue that there is no way someone can become notable just by playing video games. Regardless of the criticism pro gaming can get, the bottom line is that there are reliable sources covering this, and many other pro gamers have been kept after being nominated for AFD Rekkles, for instance. Also, yes, is someone gets significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources for years of grocery shopping, they would meet WP:GNG.-Prisencolin (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't become notable by playing games. You become notable through significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Of course there are notable gamers, this just hasn't been shown to be one of them. This has nothing to do with gaming or not, it's about significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The bottom line here is not what you summed it up as. It is that THIS person lacks significant coverage. Despite your assertion, you can't add mentions together to build notability. This isn't Lego. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the nominator and the article creator are edit-warring. Maybe work around that, regardless of the way this nomination goes. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 01:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed almost no info from the article, just a couple of dubious sources. The only info I've removed was not even contained in the source that professed to say it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done reverting edits for now. I think we're in accordance with the article in its current state, aside from its notability of course.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I am keeping an eye on esports articles and will chime in wherever possible when they're brought up for debate. With this one? I have two minds on the matter and can't exactly vote for whether it should keep or be deleted. I think I've thus far endorsed the preservation of about half the articles I've come across, which seems pretty fair. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he will never be notable. It could happen, just that it hasn't yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of good and reliable sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, which of those plentiful sources do you feel is the most substantial coverage of this person? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would still like to hear which specific source BabbaQ feels has the significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you do not know when to drop the stick do you. You have been told below. Niteshift36.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply doing a IDONTLIKEIT rationale and ignoring what other people are pointing out to you are just strange. I can if that would make you feel better add the exact same statement like Prisencolin does below but it would be a waste of time and energy. It all comes down to a interpretation of the sources, clearly I and Prisencolin sees it one way and you another. Based on the fact that you want this article merged/deleted. We could argue all day about the specific sources but we both know that we would not agree. --BabbaQ (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let's gets this straight BabbaQ.... You claim there are "plenty of good sources" and I ask the simple question of which one you feel is the strongest, then you refuse to answer the question. This isn't about IDONTLIKEIT. I've actually cited policy. You've said there are "plenty" of good sources, but refuse to share them. So your rationale amounts to "because I said so". That's not to persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in the article, sources include ESPN, The Daily Dot, Yahoo, and Sport1.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question that I asked BabbaQ. I didn't ask if there were sources, I asked which was the most substantial coverage. GNG doesn't require sources, it requires significant coverage by the reliable sources. Telling me "ESPN" when the ESPN article is about the event and doesn't even name the subject (Fly) by name, calling it significant coverage of him is pretty much wishful thinking. Now maybe the editor I asked will answer the question that I asked. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the other ESPN article, about the roster changes.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one that literally mentions him in a single sentence along with another guy? Are you seriously going to assert that is significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That single article aline doesn't amount to significant coverage obviously, but the totality of sources present do.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. 20 mere mentions don't add up to significant coverage, but a single instance of significant coverage can establish notability. Based on your notion, an actor who played roles like "Man on bus" and "bar patron #3" would become notable if he was listed enough times. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the articles about this players achievements as part of a team aren't mere mentions, since whatever the team, each individual player did also, and in this case there are only five players on a team and this player as been with multiple notable such teams, so a redirect or merger may not be WP:NPOV.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you're completely off base. Just as individual members of a band aren't notable just because the band is notable, being on a notable team doesn't confer individual notability. Clearly this concept is fuzzy to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the key difference between the music industry and gaming, the majority of band member are only part of one band dueing their entire career. On the other hand, pro gamers tend to be part of several notable teams.--16:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, not true. Many go from one band to another, especially the non-notable ones. Still, it's the notable TEAM that they become a part of. Notability doesn't transfer to them solely because they become part of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key point here is most pop musicians are only part of a single notable band; this player has been a part of several notable teams, ie ones that have standalone article on Wikipedia. The standard procedure to redirect a person into the organization they are most associated with is inappropriate for this case because there are several possibilities. Such a redirect would be WP:XY, WP:POV and WP:RECENTISM.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that your key point isn't really correct (many musicians end up playing studio tracks for numerous artists. They toil quietly in the background, never becoming notable) and it still hinges on the flawed notion that the notability of the team confers notability on individuals. And you do realize we want things to be NPOV, so why are you acting like NPOV is wrong? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually meant that it would be POV, and is bad, I've corrected this in the above post. Musicians who have associates acts that are only a one time collaboration are probably not notable just for that one collaboration. I also don't think you can compare playing studio tracks with other artists with a sports or gaming team, because the former are less formal. Honestly I don't know too much about the recording industry, but this seems to be the case.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep twisting what I say? Who is talking about one time collaborations? I'm not. Many artists use the same musicians on a regular basis. There are tons of musicians that are part of groups that are far more notable than any of these teams, but group notability isn't transferrable to individuals. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not claiming to know that much about music, so I probably didn't get the analogy right. Anyways, a person doesn't get notability from a group they are part of, but if they are part of several notable groups, they are. There are sources discussing this player's transfers between teams.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a policy that actually supports that notion? WP:NBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." This guideline then links to the essay WP:NOTINHERITED. Now, before you start talking about family, realize this addressed relationships too. It says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." That's exactly what you're arguing here. You're claiming that because the team is notable, the individual is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to OG (eSports). Everything noteworthy about this topic appears to be in context of OG's wins and not Fly's contribution. Besides for the fact that OG's own sourcing is currently weak and could be bolstered by the sources/prose in this article, Fly's article is more about OG than him. There is one interview, but I'd consider it of little consequence. Merge to the team is the best solution, and it can always spin out summary style if the information on Fly becomes too much for the OG article to handle. The discussions above about significant coverage are really disappointing—either show the passages where the individual is discussed in depth or get on board the merge train czar 15:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as still nothing actually containing the substance as his own independent notability; also, there has in fact been consensus these are not automatically notable regardless of whatever or whoever. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of good sources. So why would a AfD be instigated if it is automatically non notable? That makes no sense. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant. BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you refuse to talk about those sources, so why do you bother making the claim? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (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.

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4