Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise Nation


 * 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 delete. Mz7 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Rise Nation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable at present. Just a listing at twin galaxies does not make anyone inherently notable, unless of course the listing is about a record etc. 2Joules (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet nominator Atlantic306 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. We really need a WP:Notability (e-sports), to explain to enthusiastic new editors who just want to write about other gamers that we have inclusion standards, and sourcing standards, and that they closely relate.  What I see here for sourcing is, in the order it appears: trivial mention at a non-independent site (razer.com, which appears to be a sponsor of this team); a secondary, in-depth source (DblTap.com) but one which is explicitly fan-written and thus may be WP:UGC (it also provides a whole top-menu item for a specific team, thus appears to lack independence from the general subject if not the Rise Nation subject in particular); brief news coverage in what appears to be a legit secondary source (esports-news.co.uk); mention with nothing but the name at a similar source (dexerto.com); brief news coverage in a similar source (twingalaxies.com). We really don't need articles with RS coverage this thin. The fact that the underlying subject (e-sports or eSports or esports, however you like to spell it) is notable and that occasionally some participants in it rise to actual encyclopedic notability by appearing in  reliable sources (not just specialist sources the reputability of which have yet to be established), doesn't mean every player or team is notable just because they're mentioned and briefly covered in the gamer press. By way of direct comparison, there are many notable forms of competitive dance, and handful of notable duos within that sphere, but the the vast majority of such duos are not notable despite some coverage in dance magazines/sites.  Similarly, the demoscene was a big deal back when, but most demo teams are not notable. It's too soon for Wikipedia to do something like treat all e-sports teams like FIFA or NFL teams; on the scale of global importance, these activities and the people involved in them are much closer to the level of Little League World Series teams, or pro-am players who make it into the World Pool-Billiard Association championships (hint: we don't have articles about them). Maybe 20 years from now e-sports and teams in it will be like major international "traditional" sports and teams, but we have no way of knowing, and it hasn't happened yet.
 * Delete: I'm with SMcCandlish on this one; the need for a WP:NESPORTS is becoming increasingly apparent; our standards regarding WP:NSPORTS do not, of course, extend to teams (which is a necessary flaw). So, of course, WP:GNG is thus our controlling precedent. The general notability guideline is as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."  Naturally, significant coverage is predicated on the usage of reliable sources, and this article has sourcing that is flawed: there's really only one possibly good secondary source, and that's esports-news.co.uk. Dbltap is of unknown provenance and ownership, and a page from Razer's own website, which is not up-to-date (for the record), does not do much to inspire confidence in the sourcing. There are trivial, passing mentions, as well, and a good deal of the sources seem to be about roster changes. And the independence of most of the sources cannot be determined or verified, given the lack of bylines or author credits.  In short, all things from WP:GNG point toward the presumption of notability not being satisfied in this case. &mdash;Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 05:37, 3 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.