Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Dignitas

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 Sufficient sources demonstrated for this group to demonstrate real world notability. I considered a no-consensus but as the AFD was about notability the BBC sources are sufficient to meet that concern Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team Dignitas

Team Dignitas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non-notable gaming clan Mhking (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I speedied it; if that doesn't apply, then delete, as the article doesn't show notability. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 04:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Obviously. Just a vanity gaming clan. Jmlk17 04:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I think it's not a speedy, as it asserts notability in the first sentence (even though the claim might be interpreted as "bullshit" by some), but either way it's a vanity page for a non-notable group. Lankiveil (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

  Assertion of notability is reinforced only with a sturdy outside source; otherwise, half of the new articles that are created as a joke/vanity would have to be put up at AFD. That's what I think, at least. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not so. Notability is verified by outsides sources, but to "assert" notability, all one has to do is make a (valid) claim to being notable. The criteria for an A7 speedy is intentionally very easy to meet. For the record, this article does not meet it. UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I disagree, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion states that "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources.", which I interpret to mean that any assertion of notability, no matter how flimsy or bogus, invalidates a CSD A7. Not that I mind if this article is killed off, since the group is quite clearly non-notable, but the relevant section of the policy page has nothing on requiring steady sources that I can see. Lankiveil (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

• Speedy Delete per my above below comment. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just because it's a game clan is not a reason to delete. If this clan has actually placed in all these competitions then yes they are notable. Ridernyc (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Game clan is a reason to delete. Unless multiple reliable sources wrote about them, no, they aren't notable. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete gameclan. JuJube (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

want to point to a policy that bans game clans from wikipedia? Ridernyc (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:RS pretty much ensure that unless a gameclan collectively solves world hunger or something else, they won't have the real-world notability and reliable sources required to write an article about them. JuJube (talk) 09:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment from google news [1] , [2], [3] [4] , from a regular google search hmmm how many non-notable people get sponsorship deals [5], [6], and how many non-notable people get write ups from the BBC [7], searching the teams name plus Quake returns over 200,000 hits. These clans are big business they are like minor sport stars. Everyone in this debate is just assuming it's a bunch of kids in their parents basement. Next time actually look before you make statements about sources. Ridernyc (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

if I count correctly there are 8 different articles mentioning them on the BBC news site [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 10:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. JuJube (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be fixed the listing of their international rankings is more then enough to establish notability. Might want to strike your comment though. Ridernyc (talk) 10:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, this article wouldn't be here, would it? And for the record, the first 3 sources are just press releases, and the fourth isn't about the team, it just interviews a member. Some of the 8 you mentioned in your second comment can possibly work under WP:RS to prove verifiability, but just being internationally ranked in something isn't enough. And a better claim of notability than "among the best British (game) clans" is needed too. I think it can be saved, but you (or someone) need to do the work. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable gaming clan, sources provided are trivial passing mentions. --Coredesat 10:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the sources that Ridernyc provided, especially the BBC, convinces me that they are notable in their field. Fosnez (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Master of Puppets' comment. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Master of Puppets' comment. Non-notable "organisation" - most likely a page created by the members of the group. Mr.bonus (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep They certainly seem notable, the BBC references mentioned above [9] are pretty convincing. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment can we move on from the speedy delete debate, we are obviously past that point. Ridernyc (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, the page was created by a member of the team itself, yes, it's probably been done unprofessionally i.e. not yet on Wikipedia standards, but I can't understand how you can call Dignitas un-notable in the eSport/gaming scene - due to all the achievements we have reached, all the major tournaments we have won and all the big sponsors we have, everyone who's into the eSports-scene would put Dignitas in the top10 of the most important teams in the World if you consider eSports in general, not only e.g. Counter-Strike. If you want to delete eSports-entries all-together, go on but if you want to keep articles about major eSports teams than you can't delete an article about Team Dignitas - help me making it better, but Dignitas is too important imo to have its article deleted. --DignitasMepH (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - if not, then just delete. In your opinion it's too important, sorry if I don't see past your bias. Plus, I don't think the terms important and eSports can go in the same sentence. Plus, google hits don't count towards notability - it's in the Wiki policy. Lughguy (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because you don't feel the subject of the article is important doesn't mean that it's automatically non-notable (though I also find the idea of "e-sports" laughable). If notability can be established through the usual process, then it should be kept. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous secondary sources including several on the BBC establish notability for this group. In addition, they are sponsored by Intel [10], the largest computer chip builder in the world. --Hdt83 ^Chat 08:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hehe I saw these guys on Sky One the other day (or was it Sky2?) and I have also seen them multiple times in PC World Magazine and on that Xleague channel from SKy so I cant see how the arent notable? If you remove these guys you should remove all gaming clans not matter how big you think they are. 21:08, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

This is the only edit by a new user, which was created just 4 minutes before the edit. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)}

• Delete per Masterofpuppets. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 21:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think the notability inside eSports is quite obvious with the mentioned sources like BBC and Sky. I think what people keep arguing against is rather the notability of eSports and I don't think this is the place to discuss that. --DignitasMepH (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a heckuva cleanup, but BBC spits out a bunch of articles if you search for them: [11]. Watchsmart (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (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.