Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) (2nd nomination)

Source analysis
Does quantity translate into quality? Here are some forensics on the sources: 1.    The RedBull citation leads to a generic list of RB-sponsored athletes. "Hansen" or "Wunder" are not to be found there. Let’s try to assign some value to the citations. Value of this citation: Zero out of 5 points, to reflect total absence. 2.    Hansen wrote an opinion piece for “The Players’ lobby” website, which is a free forum for players. Value: 1, generously, since self-written works do not account for much in Wikipedia. 3.    A 2015 report in dotesports.com is about the Team Dignitas EU and not about our subject. It mentions Hansen once. The website seems rather obscure (inspirational blurb: “Dot Esports is best esports coverage ”). Value: 1. 4.    A 2015 BBC report is also about the team and mentions Hansen once. Value: 1. 5.    A DailyDot dead link has zero value. 6.    A 2015 evosport report about the team being rebranded as Splyce. Hansen once. Value: 1. 7.    A dignitas article is titled “an overview and analysis of Splyce’s transformation into one of the best teams in Europe”. Again, not about Hansen. It’s a game-by-game description of play and Hansen, as part of the team, is mentioned many times. Value: 2, generously. 8.    The ESPN piece is about Splyce’s good fortunes and not our subject but it does have a photo of Hansen and quotes his optimistic predictions. Value: 3. 9.    Another evosport report about Splyce results. Mentions of Hansen: none. Value: zero. 10. The nexus website offers the 2016 Summer Split Awards in which Hansen is mentioned as making the 1st EU LCS All-Pro Team out of the three All-Pro Teams. Value: 3. 11. Another series report in dotesports with one mention of Hansen. Value: 1. 12. And another one but without any mention. Value: zero. 13. And one from ivenglobal without any mention. Value: still zero. 14. Then, a YouTube clip about the draw of opponents in 2016. Hansen is a no-show. Value: zero. 15. ESPN has the League of Legends World Championships schedule and results but is Hansen-free. Value: zero. 16. This 2016 item relates that “Splyce retains roster for 2017 season” and since Hansen is in the roster he is mentioned. Value: 2. 17. We learn that “Wunder Re-Signs With Splyce and that of course has some merit, though the report is also about the team’s overall lineup moves. Value: 4. 18. An interview with Hansen on ESPN does not, by itself, assign our subject with the required level of notability. Here’s Interviews: if the person is not the subject of sufficient third-party analysis of their significance, then the existence of one or more interview pieces does not clinch them as notable all by itself. Value: 3, generously. 19. This RedBull report contains the 2017 EU LCS Spring Split results, and naturally mentions player Hansen in Splyce’s game reports. Value: 2. 20. Then, there is the Misfits vs. Splyce 2017 report with “scores, highlights, and news from the EU LCS playoffs” which again mentions player Hansen. Value: 2. 21. Another series report mentioning participant Hansen. Value: 2. 22. And another one by ESPN but without any mention of our subject. At this stage, one would be justified to wonder whether the article is actually about the Splyce team. Value: zero. 23. And another one without any mention of our subject. Value: zero. 24. A list of rosters. Hansen is in the rosters. And he is mentioned. Value: 1. 25. The report on the LCS 2018 Spring Split playoff semifinal misses Hansen entirely. Value: zero. 26. Another report with the same subject does mention Hansen in the All Pro line up. Value: 1. 27. And another one with the same subject, but this mentions Hansen as “unstoppable”. Value: 2. 28. Some irrelevant report contains no Hansen, no Wunder. Value: zero. 29. Then a YouTube clip with images for the EU LCS All-Pro Team Summer Split 2018. We do see Hansen. Value: 2. 30. Yet one more ESPN report, this one about how “Misfits sweep G2 in EU LCS playoffs”, which mentions player Hansen. Value: 2. I will stop here. The average value of the above citations is 1.2 out of 5 and I tried to be generous. The rest of the bunch fares no better. This is just terrible overkill without substance. And, judging from the effort expended, some editors just seem keen on having that biography up, irrespective of Wikipedia policy.

We cannot be spending our time chasing after such irresponsible acts. There’s truly more important work to do in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)