Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Vitality


 * 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. Total keep consensus based on sourcing. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Team Vitality

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NORG. No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject that discuss it in detail John from Idegon (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment — As someone who has advocated for the deletion of a lot of non-notable esports teams, I ask you...are you sure about this one? I see multiple sources from ESPN with the subject as part of the headline. That’s pretty high level sourcing, and being in the headline would suggest that it’s not a passing mention either... Sergecross73   msg me  18:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — Paraphrasing a bit from what I wrote on Team Vitality's talk page: Team Vitality's franchise is well known in the professional esports scene and its reach within Europe specifically is massive, but this was not clear originally due to the lack of written content and secondary/teritiary sources. I have attempted to remedy this and firmly believe I have done so to an acceptable degree in regards to Wikipedia policy. One of the most notable details about Team Vitality is it is one of ten permanent franchise partners of the League of Legends European Championship, which is the largest and highest level professional league [for League of Legends] in Europe. Deleting this page would be the equivalent of deleting the FC Barcelona of the European League of Legends scene. In regards to "No reliable secondary sources completely independent of the subject", if this is referring to [sources'] content [being focused solely on the team], it is rare that any team would be merely mentioned and not talked about in a news article; if this is referring to publisher, ESPN, theScore esports, and Dot Esports to name a few are all accepted as reliable sources per discussion (WP:VG/S) by the WikiProject Video games community. With all this in mind, I would be greatly disappointed if this deletion went forward. Centre Left Right  ✉ 08:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep — We need esports-specific notability standards, and being a permanent LEC franchise (see above) should clear the bar for sure. Raymie (t • c) 08:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that notability is established. I'm definitely not suited to write them, but Raymie is probably correct that esports has reached the point that it warrants its own notability guidelines, and being a permanent LEC franchise probably would be sufficient within them. For the moment I'd back that as an acceptable IAR argument (on top of me feeling notability is met), with some encouragement for some likeminded souls (that is, Wikipedians who actually know something about esports) to write them later. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (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.