Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Carbon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 early closure of this discussion, as suggested by several contributors here and on the admin noticeboard. This mass nomination clearly won't produce any sort of meaningful consensus either way. All remain free to re-list these articles individually. The nominator is kindly requested to remove the AfD tags from the articles. Sandstein 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team Carbon

Team Carbon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a team specific to Major League Gaming, but fails to be notable under WP:BIO. Also included in this AfD are the following pages:

I would check the contributors' other edits to these pages, as they're all recent and they all centre around the MLG. There seems to be over a dozen pages associated with this.

Even if the page is remotely notable, the players are not. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Might want to separate these...I would definitely vote keep for Johnathan Wendel and Team Carbon. However, it's going to be extremely hard to reach consensus on all of the articles this way. You're going to have multiple discussions on numerous articles... Gzkn 08:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, I'm not so sure about Team Carbon. Also, Colin: are you sure you've added the AfD notice to all the articles? I'm not seeing one for Dave Walsh. Gzkn 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In my relatively short time participating in AfD discussions I have seen a lot of grief come from these mass nominations and not once have I seen one result in a well-organized, thoughtful debate that came to any sort of conclusion. No offense to the nominator. Maybe this is a strategy that needs to be rethought or retired?--Dmz5 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would note that the majority of the articles nominated, aside from Johnathan Wendel, have been created solely by one user, in an act that appears to be promotional intention. None of the other persons, or teams, appear notable under WP:BIO at the current time. Perhaps in the future - but right now, this appears to be simply an attempt to drum up publicity for Major League Gaming. Haemo 08:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
While I have had some bad experiences with mass nominations as well, I have seen and even started some good, successful ones as well. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Willy Peter's Madhouse, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar inflation], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Street, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Arredi. Recently, we have had some mass nominations of towers (radio towers mainly) which went quite smoothly as well. But the articles have to be fairly similar or very related to have a successful discussion (no matter if the result is delete or keep, like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abusaria). Fram 10:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Partial Delete In the electronic sports circuit, the Major League Gaming is regarded as being non-notable, or only minor at best. The same goes for its players and teams. It seems that these articles were mostly created by people from the MLG in order to extend its playerbase onto WP. There are three articles here nominated however, that are not linked to the MLG and that are actually on top professional gamers/teams. These three being Team NoA, Team 3D and Johnathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel. For instance, they have all performed at a top level this year, as shown in 2006 e-Sports World Champions. Therefore, delete the MLG related articles and keep the actual professional gamers and teams Team NoA, Team 3D and Johnathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel. -- DJiTH 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
also delete Ken Hoang and Dave Walsh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djith (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete all but those identified as significant (e.g. above); treat as PROD if undeletion and separate debate is requested, to avoid trainwreck. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Johnathan Wendel. I have no opinion on the rest of the articles, but Wendel should not have been included, as he has a number of computer products bearing his name (I own the Creative Fatal1ty mouse and x-fi, myself.) I don't know ANYTHING about the guy or his career, but if he has major, brand-name products named after him then by default I think he merits inclusion. --Lode Runner
  • Partial Keep Johnathan "Fatal1ty" Wendel, Team NoA, and Team 3D were notable before MLG and remain so outside of MLG. The rest seem far too recent to be notable. In fact, most of the articles on players would only be a single paragraph without the charts of the team records. Would we include the team records of the Texas Rangers, New York Yankees and Washington Nationals on the page for Alfonso Soriano? So, please keep those 3 and dump the rest. Team Final Boss might be notable, since they are sponsored by Gilbert Arenas and have real salaries, but the article could use significant improvement. --Habap 15:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all Seems like self promotion via Wikipedia. Edison 16:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do not be reluctant to make a clear distinction between the MLG articles and non-MLG articles before casting a vote.. -- DJiTH 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After further review, I am going to strike out Jonathan Wendel. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment What's the motivation for still keeping Team 3D and Team NoA in this list? Obviously they have no connection with any of the other articles.. -- DJiTH 20:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Instead of attacking this, why not cite why they're notable? I have grouped those teams in because they were included in the contributors' contributions. I have no problem with gaming groups, but there needs to be a good reason for why they're notable. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Both Team NoA and Team 3D have won world championships with their Counter-Strike teams. NoA's Counter-Strike team won the World e-Sports Games first season in 2005 (in front of a live audience of thousands and an internet audience of hundreds of thousands), 3D's team won the World Cyber Games Counter-Strike competition in both 2004 and 2005. These are considered two of the most prestigious titles in the competitive gaming circuit. Of course, the articles should be updated to comply with certain standards, but other than that, the subjects are absolutely notable. -- DJiTH 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, both the Team NoA and Team 3D articles significantly pre-date the other articles (both being about 2 years old) and contain actual content instead of just the MLG records of the teams. If you review the articles, you will see that these two teams are, in fact, notable. Also, I think they call hunting down any articles edited by another author "Wiki-stalking". --Habap 23:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
While it may constitute as "wiki-stalking," when you see an editor making several pages all of which are non-notable, then logic would dictate that you'd see what this guy is up to. I have since gone ahead and struck-out Team NoA and Team 3D. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 07:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep at least Wendel. He is the most well-recognized pro-gamer ever. Buttboy666 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all since Wendel's been stricken out. None of the other ones are notable. Danny Lilithborne 22:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This really should be separate nominations. Keep Wendel and Team Carbon as they seem notable enough. Koweja 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would, after seeing some of the arguments here, think that everything other than Wendel and Team Carbon should probably be deleted - possibly some of the other teams. However, all of the team members should be deleted. They are absolutely non-notable - and their teams are on the cusp. Haemo 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all, will take on good faith the notability of the stricken noms. Deizio talk 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no possible way that this AFD can end in anything but no consensus. I'd say keep for the major teams such as Team Carbon and Str8 Ripping, and would probably merge the specific players. These are teams with major press and TV coverage, I'm not too familiar with them myself as I'm more of a PC gamer. These teams and the events they compete in will have third party press sources in which to build articles from. Something which general webculture and webcomic rubbish won't. - hahnchen 17:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as non-notable cruft. ST47Talk 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's ridiculous that Reuters would fall for that. But that's a whole different discussion :) -- DJiTH 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Partial Keep - Keep Tom and Dan Ryan. They have plenty of sources, such as a full front page section B article in a large paper, The Columbus Dispatch (unfortunately, you must have a subscription to read the archives). They won the 2005 World Cyber Games in Halo 2, which according to Wikipedia, is "the largest gaming festival celebrated once a year". A few articles related to that: [2] and they are even mentioned in the BBC News article on the festival, which tries to be mostly focused on the UK participants [3] Here's a nicely done interview on a large gaming website, GotFrag, if you'd like to add more than "just their MLG standings" [4] The argument is that Team 3D is notable, they are former members of Team 3D's Halo 2 team. They appear on the MTV True Life: I'm a Professional Gamer as the people to beat that T-Squared just can't defeat. I may be wrong, but I believe that they have been discussed on the gaming channel G4 multiple times. They are #1 and #2 in the MLG league, which I do not believe is non-notable or minor (what other leagues have a TV spot on USA, a channel carried in most homes across the country?) According to Wikipedia notability standards, they belong. They: "are competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable" "have a large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following" I could add more sources, more, better arguments, but I hope that will suffice, as I don't want to spend way more time on this than necessary. If it doesn't I will keep adding, keep sourcing, I will locate better sources (there are just the first few I found). I will even personally re-write anything that has to be changed or added if necessary. Thank you! J0lt C0la 01:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all First of all, the nomination is far too large. Second, they (the teams and individuals) play in a league that has its own program on a major US cable network. If they are taken as sportspeople, then they meet WP:BIO by playing at the highest competitive level of their sport. -- Kicking222 02:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All except for TuLegit;Johnathan Wendel, Team 3D and Team NOA were made months before the rest of the articles were even thought of! Johnathan Wendel has participated in a few MLG events, Team 3D sponsored the best MLG Halo 2 team in 2005. First off all, think about what your really doing - JUST LOOK AT Tsquared's page, this is one of the people you are trying to get rid of!!! If you look at every players page, they have been shown over a dozen times on Television. Most of the players have been featured in an article AND a magazine- the only players I can think of that haven't been featured in both are maybe StrongSide and Cpt. Anarchy, MAYBE! I have put in the rest of the references, cleaned up the first paragraphs in each electronic sports team wikipage and removed all the nonsense. Since all the team pages are clean, all the members should be clean as well. These pages are significant because all the players and teams have been shown on television from November 2006 to the end of December 2006 on USA Network on the weekly basis. I even put a link to episode 5 and 6 on every highly relevant page. They all have been featured in atleast a magazine, article, and some have been on the radio. Top MLG Halo 2 gamers are as significant as any other professional sports athlete.

user:arrashju 20 December 2006 @ 11:11 PM

  • Abstain - On the basis of lazy nomination. Mass listing makes it hard to determine individual notability. The Kinslayer 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all, this is already a trainwreck . It is a ridiculous combination of AfDs. Impossible to decide this way, better to close this one and list individually, if you must. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all - same reasons as above, plus some of the names on the list seem to be notable enough to be kept. The nominator was lazy and completely unconcerned with any sort of article checking. It appears he just listed names he saw links to from a couple of articles. If he can't be bothered dealing with the people one at a time, I can't be bothered finding anything good to say about this appalling AfD. The Kinslayer 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Re-list individually - Mass nominations always end up as trainwrecks as no consensus can be made when they are individual articles. Havok (T/C/e/c) 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per mass deletion attempt.

Quoting WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1

    • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries2 except for the following:
      • Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.3
      • Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing (newspaper articles clearly don't mention the gamers in passing), telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.4"
  • USA Network scheduled an MLG show to broadcast weekly that features Team Carbon every week from November to December 2006 Vew Team Carbon, Str8 Rippin and Final Boss on USANetwork.com.
  • On top of that, the vast majority of the players and teams listed on wikipedia have been in multiple newspapers articles and magazines. Tsquared probably has the most listed right now, including radio. Many players were just mentioned in recent newspaper articles including True Karma and Walshy. Please get this garbage AfD off these electronic sports wikipedia articles ASAP! Arrashju 00:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Trivial being the publishing media not falling for something that's more of a facade than the actual real thing? Any media publishing on the MLG with the claim that this is 'the real thing' have no idea what they're talking about and just fell for the MLG money-generated PR-machine. As said before, within the global e-Sports circuit, the MLG is regarded as non-notable, only minor at best. This being due to all kinds of factors, such as the competition model, the platforms being chosen, and so on. But most importantly, the lack of competitive nature and skill curve in the games being chosen. These players and teams should not have an article.. Players like Johan "Toxic" Quick, Paul "czm" Nelson, Xiaofeng "Sky" Li, fnatic, Pentagram, etc. should. Wikipedians should not forget being on the lookout for companies like these that are trying to re-invent history.. -- DJiTH 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Show me some proof that the "global e-sports circut" considers MLG non-notable, for I've never heard of this. This just sounds like your opinion, which group would you rather push? Even if MLG's "PR machine" is "trying to re-invent history" , they're succeeding, because many people, even non-gamers and casual gamers have heard of MLG, and its members get widespread media attention, making them notable by Wikipedia's standards, which is all that matters. This AfD debate is not about whether you like MLG and their set-ups and gametypes or whether or not they're overshadowing "better" leagues, but whether or not they meet Wikipedia standards to deserve an article, which they clearly do. J0lt C0la 03:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally, MLG is only featured on websites and other media that have no target of covering e-Sports. You will mostly see MLG featured in either business media or mainstream media, while both are obviously not knowledgeable of the field of e-Sports (yet). Sure, there will be articles on e-Sports websites, but only sporadicly. Though, you're pointing out an excellent flaw here in the Wikipedia standards, basically that journalists can invent history, or worse, that vampire corporations can use media as a tool to do so. That being said, regard the following sentence from WP:BIO: "Third-party verification from a non-trivial publication outside of publications by sponsors of the sport or activity should be provided to demonstrate that the subject is widely recognized—meeting the first criterion—as performing in a fully professional league or at the highest level.". Now regard that most of the references made in player articles are from the MLG's own website, or from MLG affiliates, like "USA Network". That aside, I'm not involved in any crusade against the MLG, on the contrary even, but I just think that there needs to be some counter-pressure against the way it currently operates and tries to position itself in the media. It's dangerous in a field that is relatively young, is the lastest buzz, and where media have no background in the subject yet. Yes, the MLG should have an article, but the players should not, whereas they have only played in one single, minor, national competition, and only have for a short period of time (apart from some participating in WSVG). Using money as the only motivation just harms the sport and the truth. If you are able to look at the whole field objectively, whether you are related to MLG or not, you will have to come to the conclusion that WCG, ESWC, CPL, WSVG, WEG, KODE and so forth are all more notable than MLG, definitely on a global scale. This all being said, multiple people suggest that this AfD will never reach any consensus and I think so too. So let's leave this for what it is and close the listing. -- DJiTH 14:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with e-sports. And whereas I consider the CPL and WCG to be of vastly greater importance than childsplay on consoles like the MLG, the mainstream press sees no different. It's not our job to be elitest, no one in e-sports gives a shit about the frag dolls, but I doubt you'll manage to delete that. - hahnchen 04:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not even comment on this board unless you have a good understanding of the leagues. Why would WCG even take Halo off of their list of competitive games if MLG is so small? In addition, why would any organization broadcast for a non-affiliate anyway? How is USA Network different than any other US cable channel? Don't avoid answering the question directly anymore, why do you believe MLG and their top three teams are non-notable?

  • Comment, As suggested above, let's go with a general (no consensus) closure of this chaotic multi-listing and individual relisting of all nominated articles. It's the only way. Deizio talk 03:40, 23 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.