Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Leto


 * 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. Based on GNG, note that sources provided during discussion were not rebutted j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Matt Leto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient notability; played Halo professionally 9 years ago and retired Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't meet the WP:GNG, there's no specific standards for "Pro e-sports" people have been created yet, and being a "Professional Halo Player" isn't inherently notable. Sergecross73   msg me   14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, I found quite a bit of significant coverage: here, here, here, and here. I'm amazed that someone can make a living playing video games but he certainly did and met WP:GNG in the process. J04n(talk page) 23:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the point though, it's all for being a halo pro for like two years then retiring and disappearing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the length of his career, it's the coverage he received, which was significant. J04n(talk page) 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GNG comfortably. The argument about him only receiving coverage for Halo not being enough for notability makes no sense, with this logic, we'd have to delete at least half of the wiki! I see sources strung out over the time he was professional, and they're not all about one tournament, so it's not a BLP1E. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But that is not the concern; the concern is whether this notable thing he did that has some coverage justify a whole article. It does not. If someone wants to add these details to a professional video game playing article, or notable video game professionals article that would make sense, but it is very unclear this wouldn't just be keeping a permanent stub. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? AfD is not for merger proposals, and in the absence of a really relevant place to merge to, this article is perfectly valid as he meets GNG. Your entire nomination centred around the fact he wasn't notable: he's pretty clearly notable. Besides, there's room for expansion there, given the great length in which the articles about him are written. Also, notability is not temporary, so the fact that he retired in 2006 is irrelevant. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Though the notability is not temporary, it speaks to a small base of sufficent reliable sources to construct a solo article and justify its existence. And I agree, there is nowhere to merge, and that's why it's here and not a merger proposal. You are also right that this is centered on notability, which is not as clear as you're making it out to be. This logic could be used to create articles on thousands of Internet memes, with a thousand different websites parroting the same one or two facts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your logic escapes me entirely. This guy has in-depth coverage from even non-video gaming sources, like the New York Times, and Houston Press/Houston Chronicle. Let alone the in-depth coverage in reliable gaming sources, like GameSpot, and IGN (which is now a deadlink, but can be found here: ). Even just taking GameSpot and IGN, GameSpot is from 2004, IGN is from 2006. The GameSpot thing is from before World Cyber Games 2004, the IGN thing before the 2006 edition of Championship Gaming Series. This isn't a one event, he passes WP:GNG as clear as the nose on my face (you can argue Houston is local coverage, fine, but IGN, GameSpot and NY Times certainly is not), and this nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's a perfectly valid stub, that could be expanded if someone wanted to, using the plethora of reliable sources available. Your comment about memes is irrelevant, as if they pass WP:GNG, then they may have an article, but very, very few do pass WP:GNG (reliable sources don't care for them). is even more coverage.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing I "don't like" are non notable stubs. Let the votes fall where they may. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even when two users prove it's a notable stub? *scratches head* Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with your assertion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The question for me is not, how long was he playing professionally, or how many people wrote about him, but, was he one of the best in the game. I could be wrong about this, but there can't have been that many Professional Halo players, and therefore, yes, he was one of the best.  Looking at his record on his page, first place in several tournaments, it looks like, again, he was one of the best.  Any sport/game popular enough to have people paid to play should grant the best of the paid players--or all of them if there are only a few--enough Notability.  Listmeister (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2013 (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.