Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (video gamer)


 * 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)

Fly (video gamer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It looks like the nominator and the article creator are edit-warring. Maybe work around that, regardless of the way this nomination goes. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

 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)
 * Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of good and reliable sources as well.BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Would still like to hear which specific source feels has the significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL you do not know when to drop the stick do you. You have been told below. .--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So let's gets this straight .... 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)
 * As seen in the article, sources include ESPN, The Daily Dot, Yahoo, and Sport1.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I was talking about the other ESPN article, about the roster changes.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


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


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