Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champion (League of Legends)


 * 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 delete. Delete requested by author per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Champion (League of Legends)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary spin-off from main article League of Legends, about in-game characters called 'Champions'. Huge overlap with the main article, without any relevant stand-alone coverage. Most of the references are just run-of-the-mill WP:CHURNALISM. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, note that pretty much the same article was deleted over five years ago (see Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination)) and there actually was a deletion review about that last month (see Deletion review/Log/2020 July 17). List of League of Legends champions has been WP:SALTED, but it's clear consensus hasn't changed. Isn't this a form of WP:SALT evasion?  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was actually close to nominating this for deletion myself, but looks like Soetermans beat me to it. Anyway, this article greatly suffers from a lack of any significant coverage provided by reliable sources. Most of it is just fluff made to pad out the article, and some sources (like Mashable and "www.gameskinny.com") seem very dubious and don't come off as reliable. There is no way this is notable. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Player character covers this in a more vague sense, and actually makes sense as a separate article, but this is overspecific and only applies to a single game, making it something more fitting for Wikia/FANDOM. It is essentially gamecruft and we must also consider the substance of the article rather than whether there are just sources that mention Champions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources to write anything that isn't already covered in the main article. As is, the section about champions in the main article is heavily unsourced, or sourced to primary sources. And it's fine to have an under sourced section in an otherwise notable article, because that's where the editing process is supposed to step in with sources and/or removal. But all we're doing here is turning an under sourced section into an under sourced article, at which point you're just creating something that cannot meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete A DRV related to the similar-but-differently-formatted List of League of Legends champions discussed this draft as essentially a reframing of the same topic. The DRV was ultimately endorsed. The draft was declined twice at AFC before being accepted by another reviewer with no further changes against the consensus expressed in the DRV and on the talk page of the then-draft. Otherwise, agree with the nom and Shooterwalker's rationale. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This page has no better justification for remaining than any of the other attempts made over the years to include content that is non-notable and/or is already covered in the League of Legends page. I am particularly unimpressed with the fact that shortly after the draft was rejected, it was still pushed into the main space.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify I don't know who made the move into article space, but as the person primary working on the article I oppose it being moved into main space at this time. Honestly I didn't think it would be mainspaced given that it was rejected at AFC. Hopefully admin closing this with do this for me.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we possibly get a consensus to speedy revert back to draft space so I don't have to go the procedure to ask for this to go back to draft space in a week?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is clear that this cannot and will not be notable, so I do not see the purpose of draftification. It will just get rejected again and again. You are perfectly free to edit the League of Legends to incorporate any reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering the past venue shopping by the article creator in regards to this article, it's List sibling and other League of Legend sub-topics, I am opposed to a speedy close or a revert to draft. This needs a clear statement and close on notability. If the topic isn't notable, there's no reason to keep saving these drafts until the next time Prisencolin tries to get them into mainspace and we repeat this. We've spent enough time on this. Half of this began because after the close of the last AFD, he was allowed to keep a draft of the article under specific conditions that he subsequently violated. If this is taken to DRV or REFUND after closing and asked to be draftified, I'll oppose that too. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear this time it was, not myself, who mainspace this article this time.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Either way, per WP:ARTN, notability is a property of a subject, no amount of improvements will make a non-notable topic notable. Therefore it is pointless to continue attempting to WP:SPLIT this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule that an article, given that it meets sitewide rules for content, cannot at least exist in draft space just because it doesn't meet notability standards at the moment, unless decided decided upon by ARBCON or some other body. Furthermore the popularity of both the game and media franchise surrounding the character is projected to increase over time.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did move it to mainspace. It certainly seems to meet the GNG, I apologize to Prisencolin as apparently that wasn't their desire.  Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I did tell you I wasn't going to be actively working on the draft much anymore and you didn't fix any of the problems you brought up yourself...--Prisencolin (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources seem well over the bar. Let's take the best three:
 * PC Gamer This is an article in a reliable source entirely about the design process of a Champion in League of Legends.
 * Engadget This is an article in a reliable source about Champions in League of Legends and the future plans for new ones.
 * A paper published in ICIT that analyzes usage of Champions in play.
 * In addition there are tons of articles on Champions:


 * Polygon This is an article in a reliable source about the design of a single champion.
 * PC Gamer2 This is another article about a single Champion.
 * Eurogamer is about a lawsuit involving the likeness of a Champion. Also in a reliable source.
 * The Verge is an article in a reliable source solely about how Champions from LoL are being used in other media.
 * Vogue is an article about how Louis Vuitton has done clothing designs for a Champion.
 * All told, this article is better sourced than the vast majority of our articles. It easily meets the GNG.  Yes, I know Wikipedia folks tend to frown on "popular culture", especially geek popular culture as it tends to be over-represented here.  But this easily meets our inclusion guidelines with sources not only in gamer culture spots like you would expect, but mainstream media and even an academic paper. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have here articles about individual Champions, but not about the concept of a Champion, which results in WP:SYNTH. So, excluding those, the PCGamer and Engadget ones are interview, and therefore WP:PRIMARY. They are not WP:SECONDARY coverage required to establish notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the sources. Sorry I pinged you below, I'd missed this.  The acadmic paper is surely a secondary source.  And yes there are other sources like  which appears to have an entire section on Champions.  Hobit (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per all the previous discussions on its lack of notability, and WP:TROUT the person who felt it was a good idea to move it into the mainspace anyways. Sergecross73   msg me  01:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you address the sources? It may not have been notable at one time, but I think the sources above show it is now.  Do you have any issues with those as counting toward WP:GNG?  Also pinging  .  It would be great if you all could address WP:GNG and the sources listed above. They all appear to be reliable, independent, and in-depth coverage of the topic.  Do you disagree with that?  Hobit (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not significant coverage, since the information comes from the developers themselves (making them primary). The other sources provided don't offer much outside of mentions or specific characters instead of the champion itself, so that also adds to this subject's lack of notability. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 03:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly; they might be good sources for the Development section on the League of Legends page.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 03:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we agree the academic paper is an independent secondary source? Hobit (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I tagged this for WP:G7 speedy deletion since I'm the main contributor to this article. Would you be okay with this happening, seeing as you're the only other editor who has made any substantial edits?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.