Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made in Brazil (eSports)


 * 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. SoWhy 10:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Made in Brazil (eSports)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete. Was speedy-delete-tagged "not notable", but this discussion developed in its talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This page should not be deleted, for the reason that this has actually been a very notable team throughout the history of the professional Counter-Strike scene. Despite them not being English-speaking, (not sure why that would be relevant at all, by the way), they were one of the most dominant teams, having been a founding member of G7 Teams, which was a prominent organization leading up to 2009. Though I did not create this page, I do not agree with the basis for the speedy deletion tag. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 17:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed. mibr is a historic name in CS, among the likes of SK Gaming, NiP, WeMade FOX, and Team 3D. Not to mention the org just picked up arguably the best Global Offensive core of all time. Drwoo217 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, we were indeed having this discussion on the talk page. So, why did you open a new AfD and just copy-paste our comments as the rationale? D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 05:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 05:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Requesting closure: Consensus prior to this improper nomination was to keep this and considering the lack of rationale, this should be an easy keep and close. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 16:12, 11 July 2018 (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.