Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. National Video Game Team


 * 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. Editors are reminded of WP:NTEMP and WP:OFFLINE. Content issues such as the inclusion of lists of historical members and NPOV can be dealt with on the talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

U.S. National Video Game Team

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the name, no recognized official status. Very little non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish any sort of notability; had a brief run of limited attention in the 80s, and nearly none since. Most (if not all) of the links in the timeline to twingalaxies.com are broken. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The U.S. National Video game team was registered for Trademark and rebooted 8-7-2015 Since the announcement of the reboot, we've been working on compiling historical articles, with the intent to add them to this page. Since our first small edits, this page, has been near constantly edited and put up for deletion. It makes absolutely no sense to me that a page that has been here for as long as this page has existed, has been put up for deletion over and over again. Myself an original member of the team in 1983 Tim McVey, along with Patrick Scott Patterson are attempting to preserve the history of the first original video game team in the country. We have the documents, we can't put them up yet. We do not wish to violate copyright in doing so. We are working on securing permission and following procedures to update the page in the correct manner. This process takes time. We would like for the page to NOT be deleted in the mean time. The original team was founded with several specific goals. We wanted to raise money for charity was one of them. Our bus tour in 1983 was to raise money for Cystic Fibrosis. The other purpose of the team in 1983 was to challenge other countries around the world, to create a national team to represent their country, and to engage in friendly completion among the different nations National teams. This part never came to fruition. We are attempting to reboot the team, the name, preserve the legacy of the original members and historic events, and modernize for todays world and pursue similar goals as the original team had planned. With all the negativity online, GamerGate etc related to video games...we will be striving for the best in gaming. Positive team members. Members who embody the vision of promoting gaming in a positive manner. This does not happen overnight. Give us a chance. Help us make this page correctly. We are willing to take the time, to read and research, and make this page an addition to Wikipedia. We definitely want to get it removed from stub status. But right now, we can't seem to go more than 5 minutes without somebody editing out content, or putting the page up for deletion. Sprinter461 (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Sprinter461 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read our policy on notability. This issue isn't whether or not something exists, but rather if it meets the criteria outlined in that policy. Primary sources (e.g., press releases) do not count toward notability; see WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So how can I fix it, if you CONSTANTLY change it? While I am in the middle of editing it? Sprinter461 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Also why was the list of past team members acceptable from 2008 until we started trying to fix the page recently? I do not understand. Sprinter461 (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment A long list of non-notable names (the only thing I've deleted from it) does not in anyway "fix" the article. You may also want to read our policy on article ownership (short version: there is no article ownership). OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This page existed with what you call "non notable names" for years without it ever being considered an "issue". Your edits have actually made the page less factually correct, too, as your arbitrarily chosen "notable members" were made up of mostly former members, but your wording made it appear they were current. I am not a Civil War expert, which is why I don't edit Civil War pages. Not only do I feel a page that existed here for the better part of a decade should remain in place, but I do not feel edits should be made so freely by a person with limited or no knowledge on the subject as has been happening SuperPacMan (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Sprinter461 I will say that Wikipedia's list inclusion policy (mentioned in WP:Prose), which requires that entities in a list already have pages, is byzantine and nearly paradoxical in a lot of situations. But it does prevent long lists of trivia from being included and tends to bring about better articles. The best way to address this is ideally on the article's talk page. The discussion of deletion is primarily focused on the topic of the article, not how it was written or whether anyone liked it.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Userify I think this article has the potential to meet guidelines for inclusion, but the subject of the article literally re-launched this month. It will be some time before notability is going to be established in a way that's going to qualify. For many of the reasons outlines WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not, this article isn't yet ripe for inclusion. Once the team has been written about in some credible non-PR contexts, it should be reconsidered.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The recent attempts to improve this page are indicative of and similar to activities that are banned. In this case, the specific inclusion of press releases and links to commercial blogs do not add value to the topic but serve only to affect the author's interests and not of the global knowledge community. This page is not meant to be personal property where one can promote a sole proprietorship or corporation.  This page should be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.183.9 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure attempts to improve a page can ever really be banned, since we almost always assume good faith on an editor's part (WP:AGF). While I agree that these links do not yet qualify the article properly, I'm not prepared to come down any more harshly than to suggest the editor userify the page and continue work.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This page existed for YEARS as it was. Nobody ever questioned it's worthiness or the notability of anyone listed on it before. All I did was add a snippet of recent news to make sure that the page read correctly. We then had a vandal... and since the vandal we have been nailed with a long line of admins that do not seem to realize this. The updates were to add to the knowledge base of the page and nothing more. For that matter the articles (not blogs) written about the history of it were also done in the interest of ensuring that very valid history was told, and were written well before the trademark was filed. In fact, the whole point of getting the trademark was to save the rich history of this Team. If you don't think a company like Coca Cola adds info to their page you aren't being honest. Help me understand how this page can exist as a stub for YEARS without it ever being a problem, only to be put up for deletion by an admin that seems to have little knowledge of the subject after a few minor edits and a vandal comes by? Our only intent with this team is to save and preserve the first-ever eSports team and you want to toss it out after it's been on here for YEARS? SuperPacMan (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, a simple look at the overall history of the page puts perspective on this. It was originally put into Wikipedia in June 2006 by the original founder, who did nothing but link to information he'd posted himself. The page then existed almost exactly as he posted it for over NINE YEARS without any admins saying it wasn't noteworthy or that anyone in it wasn't notable. Only after a minor edit to add in new information and an attack by a vandal it fended off this page is suddenly a problem? You can understand why I might be puzzled by that or might take this a little bit personal. NINE YEARS this article was on here - placed by the original founder and, it appears, edited over time by former members - and nobody takes issue until MORE info is actually added. Not a new page... a page that has been here since June 2006 and put up by the original founder. Please explain how things are only an issue now? SuperPacMan (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment To get immediately to the point, there are millions of pages. This page -- much like the team you reference -- languished in obscurity for years.  The recent back and forth edits brought it to my attention.  If it is a historical team, why not merge the information with the Twin Galaxies own page?  If this is a new organization, then you are guilty of self promoting your own business which is more then enough grounds for deletion.  This is the world's information.  This is not your personal website.  You have asked a good question about why the page was unmolested for years.  The answer is that the page was simply too minor for anyone to notice.  The only outside information I could find about this team was this very article.  The purpose of Wikipedia is not to record every minor detail of the business world but to make freely available the world's knowledge.  Minutiae and trivia do not qualify for their own pages.

Perhaps because the Team was only intertwined with Twin Galaxies for a few years of it's history? After that, it ran on it's own and did a great deal on it's own. Combining the USNVGT's information with an organization that it was only involved with for a fraction of it's history would not be right and fair to preserving that history. From 1986 forward, the USNVGT was not involved in any way with Twin Galaxies and accomplished a great deal during that time, arguably more than it did with it. Why not just merge the page for the United States of America in with the Wiki page for England? Same logic. As far as finding "outside information" from outside this article, a Google search for U.S. National Video Game Team on Google provides me a great deal of information not linked in this article. Not sure why or how your results would vary.SuperPacMan (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This article also violates What_Wikipedia_is_not and Identifying_reliable_sources, the author of recent edits and main supporter of this article is supporting it with PR he has written himself, as a means of self promotion, which is not in any way a reliable source as anyone can construct those "PR Releases" for any purpose. The author in question also does not seem to comprehend the idea of relevance and neutrality of subject as well as Ownership_of_content, the wiki is not meant to be used in the way this author intends and for all the reasons mentioned above, the article should be deleted as it is not relevant nor noteworthy on it's own at this time and has been covered in a more significant article Twin_Galaxies. 216.223.64.50 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So you wish to kill the page for reasons that existed with it from day one when the original founder set it up and posted things he wrote himself? Only one thing, by the way, is a PR release. In fact, the "more significant article' you site was created by the owner of that company at the time and edited by people involved with that company ever since. Unreal. SuperPacMan (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment An article having existed previously in obscurity without being deleted despite being largely in contrast with the standards of the wiki does not exempt it from having those rules and regulations applied now. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving construct and while the article may have been valid under rule sets previously, it violates numerous rules currently as pointed out above. Be careful not to form tunnel vision around topics which are irrelevant (to wit: who created the page, who edited it and when) and instead review some of the conflicts as they have been pointed out in this discussion and it may add clarity as to why there is an issue with this article. 216.223.64.50 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Instead of making demands to know WHY the rules apply it would be more constructive if you edited the page to shed light on why the notability of the organization. Shedding light does not include adding links to websites and blogs that you are responsible for.  Please use real world examples of how this team was important in the past as well as today.  Being combative and/or argumentative will not win your case.  Please also explain why this allegedly historical team merits its own page.  Providing links to neutral sources will greately help your case.  We are all trying to increase the quality of the pages here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.183.9 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see sourcing/significant coverage enough to meet the WP:GNG. I can reconsider if more/better sources are provided, but right now I'm not seeing is. Sergecross73   msg me  15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

We cannot add anything to the article. Every time we touch it to add to it, it's immediately reverted and the changes are removed. Go ahead and delete it. The historical list of team members is already gone. It's pointless in it's current state. One more piece of video game history gone. You have a person on here editing that has a personal agenda. RJFJR he's bragging on Facebook about getting the page deleted. Rudy J Ferretti. Sprinter461 (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Its hard to respond when you speak in such generalities. I don't know who RJFJR is, I don't see a name like that mentioned anywhere here or the article's edit history. I don't know who this is, but we can't really control what happens off-Wikipedia, and it doesn't really factor into these discussions unless someone was inappropriately trying to recruit people to side with him in these discussions.
 * I'm also not sure what changes you're trying to make that keep getting removed. Is it the complete list of members? If so, it's probably right to be removed - empty lists with nothing other than names, and no real context/information on them in the way of descriptions or WP:WIKILINKs, are usually removed from lists in Wikipedia. If you're referring to something else, then you'll have to tell me specifically.
 * If you're unhappy that your changes keep on getting undone before you're finished, you can always copy the content to a WP:SANDBOX and then make the changes you want to make, and link us to it here or the talk page and have people discuss whether or not your proposed changes are appropriate. It's basically a little "rough draft" type area. Sergecross73   msg me  18:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion and the page history seem to suggest some sort of edit war between advocates for the page and an anonymous user determined to remove changes they're making. Before any further action is taken, I suggest someone with the appropriate authority sort out the edit war.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has edited the article in 5 days, so I don't really think there's anything to sort out there... Sergecross73   msg me  12:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

--Reinoutr (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The crux of the matter is whether or not the subject of the matter is noteworthy. The advocates of the page claim to be co-owners of the team.  They claim to be neutral and only interested in preserving history.  Their proof of notability is a series of links to paid blogs (of which they themselves are the authors), essentially turning this page into click-bait.  Their attempt at preserving history is a thinly veiled attempt at promoting their own business interests.  At least that is the distinct impression given.66.96.183.9 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Sergecross73. Coverage in reliable sources is minimal and insignificant. Most of the "keep" arguments are not policy-based and amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITEXISTS. Satellizer   (´ ･ ω ･ `)  00:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, because many false arguments are being used here:
 * As stated by the nominator: "had a brief run of limited attention in the 80s, and nearly none since" -> the fact that there has been no recent attention is not ground for deletion, of course we also cover historal topics.
 * As seen in older versions of the article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._National_Video_Game_Team&oldid=73823534), this was covered by a significant number of reliable sources, e.g.:
 * CashBox Magazine, August 27, 1983
 * Chicago Suburban Tribune, August 24, 1983
 * RePlay Magazine, February 1, 1984
 * PlayMeter Magazine, March 1, 1984
 * Torrance Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA, July 12, 1987
 * All of that information was removed at some point only because the links were no longer active. That is not an acceptable way of editing Wikipedia. We do not rely on whether information is available online at this moment, if there was sufficient coverage back then, this certainly should be sufficient ground to include the topic
 * Yes, there seems to be edit warring over the article, and perhaps some of those involved have a COI. But, the article has existed since 2006 and has been edited by many editors since that time, most of which will not have had a COI. Edit warring is not grounds for deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The team received a fair bit of coverage when it was active in the 80s, such as in Life magazine, but much of that content is not freely available on the web. I don't know about the Conflict of Interest editing going on here, but I'm sure it can be cleaned up in the mean time.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would think if the topic was notable in the 70s there would at least be some mentions in newspapers from that time. But searches on Google Newspaper turn up only two mentions, both of them clearly trivial. I see it has been pointed out there were mentions in magazines from the 70s but is anyone in a position to say they are substantial coverage right now? Considering the number of voters above who clearly feel very strongly towards keeping the article, and the fact that almost no links or sources are being provided, I'm inclined to conclude that there simply is only trivial coverage. If more sources can be uncovered, the article can be recreated. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2015 (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.