Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Pandemic

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 delete. Far too self-promotional, virtually all external links are self-referential. And yes, as an llc, the organizations and companies notability guideline does apply. Future recreation remains an option, but only with these concerns having been fully addressed. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team Pandemic

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

This page is basically an advertisment for this group of video game players and their "partners". I don't feel it asserts enough notability to survive AfD, so I'm putting it up. DurinsBane87 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete per nom Sawblade05 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That TWO tonight ;) I would simply say they are ORGANIZED and a huge step above a clan, winning actual money (that is notable) and sponsored by one of the largest computer makers (one week ago on Dell.com's site, notable) and are not playing a single game, thus they are professional gamers, not people who play "a" game. Ok, they need to trim the spam from the ARTICLE, but they are unique in gaming and noteworthy, even if the article needs work, which isn't a reason to delete. Ok, it barely makes it under the wire, but they are very far from some CS clan with a long flash intro using free web hosting. Pharmboy 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Supersonic Delete per WP:CORP... There are no secondary sources that establish notability, only primary sources, and a whole circle of self-referential (read: industry and fancruft) stuff. If I were an admin, I would have speedy deleted on those grounds. We have deleted businesses with much more ghits before because of lack of secondary source notability. Just because we are a bunch of geek who dream of being able to make a living of our mad gaming skillz, doesn't mean WP:CORP doesn't apply - this *is* a business. BTW, the whole "partners" section with logos and all that is total unencyclopedic, OR, advertising, and I am removing it. Thanks!--Cerejota 10:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Then it's good your not an admin, as it doesn't meet speedy in any way (according to the actual speedy policies), regardless of any other opinion of the article. Dell's sponsoring seems to be a secondary source as well, an actual endorsement.
* http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=823484475&channel=823412078 where they are competing in China (international competition seems noteworthy, they aren't just geeks sitting in mom's basement)
* AGAIN, the link above is covered by multiple news outlets, including [OLGN], and [ZoneRank (China)], [Statesman.com] and others. I don't know the guys, don't really care except policy seems to getting ignored simply because of what they WERE, and not what they ARE. They ARE organized, compete internationally (ie: fly there, not from home), have the endorsement and funding from Dell, generating winnings, and every game blog (albeit, tiny sites) has covered them. It is a novel field as well. I fail to see how this makes them NOT noteworthy. They need to trim the garbage out of the article, BUT this is not a valid reason to delete the article, it is a reason to tag it or edit it out. I am just confused as to why others here can't seem to find all the 3rd party references, and I'm tired of doing others dirty work. Pharmboy 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
None of those are particulary reliable sources. Get me the New York Times technology or business pages, or the Wall Street journal. Please read and understand WP:CORP. Yes they might be notable enough to deserve mention in an article related to gaming in wikipedia, but not enough to justify a corporate page. Please keep advertising out of wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Statesman.com is the web outlet of the Austin American Statesman, a print newspaper founded in 1871 serving Austin, Texas. Are you suggesting this is not a reliable source? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is a good source for Dell, but it is not about Team Pandemic. Riding someone else's notability is not reliable sourcing. A reliable source is not just a publication but the ocntext of the actual source itself. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I agree the spammier portions need removing, but that is an edit and shouldn't be used as a question of whether they are notable or not. Also, I gave just a few quick links, there are hundreds from smaller sites the sheer volume of references from small but real sites is more than adequate, and it is easy to look and see this. AND the first link I gave is from DELL's site. Keep and remove the advert parts of it. They are notable, they just don't know how to write a proper Wikipedia article. Pharmboy 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Pharmboy's findings and this which seems to suggest the team was featured on CBS Sports this past weekend. I'm not getting the WP:CORP argument as this seems to be a sports team of sorts, not a corporation. Spam needs removing.--Sethacus 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The article itself say it is a corporation. Professional sports teams are subjected to WP:CORP too, and we have deleted non-notable professional sports teams before.--Cerejota 06:06, 31 July 2007 (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.