Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cavanaugh


 * 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. --Ezeu 00:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Cavanaugh

 * — (View AfD)

As per a previous AfD, I am resubmitting this. This article fails WP:BIO and is related to Major League Gaming. :: Colin Keigher ( Talk ) 21:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom --Bryson 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO - all of these need to disappear. SkierRMH, 22:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As with many of the others, Cavanaugh/StrongSide passes WP:BIO by playing at the highest competitive level of his sport. He was on one of the best teams in the world, Team Carbon, and is now on Team Final Boss- which, last I knew, was numero uno. -- Kicking222 04:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the "highest competitive level" has always been the weakest link in WP:BIO as it is. And this article is about the perfect argument against it. Seraphimblade 04:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sorry, but you can't stop following Wikipedia policy just because you don't agree with it. Meets WP:BIO-Stinkman 22:25, December 2006
 * Keep It's been a long day, so I'll try to keep it shorter than on the other AfD's. He used to be a member of Team Carbon and is now a member of Final Boss, placing him on both of the most notable e-sports teams. That alone makes him meet WP:BIO, but I'll give you a few links just to solidify it.  He probably has an article in a physical paper like the others, but I haven't found one yet, and I'm busy arguing on too many articles as it is. Even if he doesn't, just by being on Carbon and Final Boss, he meets notability guidelines. J0lt C0la 04:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, professional gamers that get media attention are certainly notable. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete — sources are too trivial to pass WP:BIO; nothing else that passes notability. Article also reads like a blog post in parts. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to improve the articles with the multitude of sources that I've given, it won't "read like a blog" when I'm done. J0lt C0la 00:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Michael Cavanaugh has been featured on MLG's Pro Circuit on USA Network. MLG is a very significant league - it offers the most prize money for its permanant games and has broadcasted shows on USA Network featuring every single player and team on the list. Most if not all players have had articles written about them in their local newspaper. EGM magazine - the most popular gaming magazine (you can get it in any of your local pharmacy stores) regularly feature MLG and its best teams and players. Wall Street Journal published an article about the first contract deal MLG offered to its top gamers.
 * Delete Subject has never appeared in any major international competition, nor has any notable achievements and therefore fails WP:BIO. For clarification regarding e-Sports, view e-Sports and 2006 e-Sports World Champions -- DJiTH 22:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work on e-sports in general, but I am seeing a major anti-MLG bias in all your 'delete' votes. I feel that I have gone above and beyond in proving notability in all these AfD's, and that you are against the articles merely because they are members of MLG rather than some other league. J0lt C0la 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * keep please this meets bio guideline not liking it is not reason for deleting Yuckfoo 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as he plays at the highest level of his "sport". --- RockMFR 21:38, 30 December 2006 (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.