Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORG1VEN


 * 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)

FORG1VEN

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * Comment A discussion on the notability of eSports subjects is ongoing at Village pump (policy), 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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? Timothy Joseph Wood  02:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * They were both fleeting mentions that don't come close to clearing the GNG.   Ravenswing   03:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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. Timothy Joseph Wood  02:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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. Timothy Joseph Wood  03:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So you !voted Delete to get the article redirected/merged? Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Youre supposed to be identifying yourself as the article creator in these discussions, I believe. Sergecross73   msg me  02:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of events, and doesn't use the word "debarred". Unscintillating (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fixed. Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And unfixed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.