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. This appears to have been a bad faith nomination and the sockpuppetry is disregarded. I am not sure what policy/guideline based argument is made by the remaining delete !vote but as it has been demonstrated and agreed that there is sourcing that meets GNG the result is keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I follow the deletion argument. This appears to be a referenced article about an esports league. It's had a bit of suspicious editing activity, but even ignoring banned users, it seems to have been edited by a number of people, and is referenced to news articles from different sources. What am I missing? ApLundell (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no reliable source that show this eSports is qualifying for wikipedia SavingWikiFromSpaming (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Stalwart's cross-border collaboration project was covered by Vice, Dot Esports, and The Indian Express. There's also this in the Economic Times and this in the Esports Observer, which WP:VG considers reliable. I wouldn't rely on the AFK Gaming site for notability, but I don't think this article needs to. I'm also pretty confident that users like SavingWikiFromSpaming aren't exactly operating in good faith, as their only edits are to !vote delete on esports AfDs and file spurious SPIs. Alyo(chat·edits) 14:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources, as indicated by Alyo. ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk) 02:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News article don’t show the significance of a team. A team should win or participate in a notable competition. If i only create a team and post some news article it is not shows a good thing. This thing may only created for social handle verification. Wikipedia should not promote this unimportant objects. Wikipedia is like a mirror for world which gives us real history about our past and present. Please do the appropriate thing it deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.127.95.161 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. This discussion points to a real need for either a subject notability guideline for eSports teams, or an explicit statement that no SNG applies and it's the GNG or bust. Too much of the discussion was taken up arguing over NCORP and NSPORTS to get any real clarity about the quality of sourcing. It would be appropriate to revisit this in a year or so. Mackensen(talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A not so famous eSports team. Just routine coverage. No international or regional ESL participation. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. - Hatchens (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment: I'd like to see this nomination at least address the sources that led to this article being kept a few months ago? In the absence of that I still default to keep. Alyo(chat·edits) 15:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alyo, This is a single event case i.e., Being in the news with a single event - "cross-border cooperation" - does not in itself mean that an entity (organization in this case) should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. -Hatchens (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the future you should say that in the AfD nomination; as it is the nom appears to ignore a lot of previous discussion about the article topic. Regardless, if the main reasoning for deletion is WP:CORPDEPTH, then I completely disagree with your interpretation and I don't think that the geopolitical aspect of Stalwarts activities falls under "brief mentions and routine announcements". I'm still a keep. Alyo(chat·edits) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my Esports team! I joke, but I think I've been editing here longer than they have been e-sporting. Alyo makes a salient point here; what has changed since February this year? St★lwart111 07:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, it shouldn't have been passed in the Feb. Anyway, I will try to dig more into the page editors and it's reviewers history. - Hatchens (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you disagree with an AFD close, that's a matter for WP:DRV. Otherwise, the relevant guide is WP:RENOM. WP:1E relates to people (not groups), WP:NCORP relates to companies (not sports teams), WP:ROUTINE is about statutory announcements and the like (not announcements by a group that have received significant coverage in reliable sources), and the history of the article isn't really something that is relevant to the subject's notability (but is relevant to WP:BEFORE which includes a check of the talk page which features the COI declaration you were looking for). St★lwart111 00:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, There has been a discussion on ESPORTS-related notability and its inclusion as per WP:NSPORTS. Currently, there is a clear and established lack of consensus to consider "Esports" a sport - here is the link of that discussion. Since, it's not classified as a "SPORTS TEAM" (in Wikipedia)... so we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines. And, according to that... the organization simply fails because WP:CORPDEPTH (and rest of the coverages are nothing more or less than WP:ROUTINE). If we scrutinize it further, then you will find the page creator himself/herself is banned (indefinitely) - though I was quite skeptical to add CSD notice under G5 provision so I added AfD tag (2nd nomination). As you have rightly said, I could have gone through WP:DRV... But it's no more relevant because this new nomination has been added after 6 months. Feel free to rectify my interpretation, if it's found to be incorrect. -Hatchens (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed disagreement with the result of a previous AFD; the correct forum for that disagreement is DRV, not another AFD. It might not be disruptive (as renominating it might have been inside 6 months) but its still the wrong venue. The genesis of the article (and the involvement of banned editors) is irrelevant to the subject's notability. As for notability, I'm not sure why - having decided WP:NSPORTS is the wrong guideline - we should default to WP:NCORP for this unincorporated affiliation of esports participants...? "we have to gauge this page under WP:NCORP guidelines"... why? There are some corporations that the community has decided shouldn't be subject to that guideline. I'm not sure why we're looking for reasons to subject non-corporations to it. Where nothing else fits, we have WP:N and WP:GNG in particular. St★lwart111 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, I can't help with your interpretation on WP:DRV - you are good in twisting it based on your interest - like at ongoing AfD Discussion of Luca Soccer Club (& there... I extended my support for the same). Nevermind, you yourself know the best reason behind such duplicity. Now, if we look at this entity which has been listed with Crunchbase as "For profit" organization - by default we have to assume it under WP:NCORP. If not, then as per your likings if we consider it under the provision of WP:GNG - then also it fails. Btw, I don't know how that DRV got closed without much discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, also I didn't participate in earlier AfD discussion so there is no question of me having any prior disagreement. This nomination is a fresh call that too taken after 6 months gap. So, kindly treat it accordingly. - Hatchens (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "twisting" or "duplicity", it's a simple matter of WP:WRONGVENUE. But if all you have to offer this discussion is bludgeoning and personal attacks there's no point engaging with you. And raising an AFD where the nominator probably should have been referred to WP:ANI is an... interesting... tactic. St★lwart111 13:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, I am not responsible for your poor interpretation of wiki guidelines. However, before you go ahead with your WP:ANI threat tactic... I would recommend to add this AfD to an appropriate AfD discussion thread such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/eSports/afd to generate much wider general consensus (under the assumption of good faith). We never know, we both may learn couple of good things. -Hatchens (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? There's no threat; you were talking about a different discussion. Please read things properly. St★lwart111 13:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stalwart111, it's ok, leave it. Can you help me to tag this AfD with proper AfD discussion category to generate wider consensus? We need much better inputs on how to categorize this entity. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Nothing about this has been good-faith. You didn't conduct proper WP:BEFORE checks, accused another editor of not declaring a COI when they clearly had, then accused someone else of undeclared paid editing and sock-puppetry, then accused me of duplicity and deliberately misinterpreting guidelines to make a WP:POINT. Why on Earth you think I would support any of that is beyond me. St★lwart111 14:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the editors Abhayesports tried to reach out and gave one of the highly vague lecture on "South Asia Esports Scenario" which can be accessed via this link - User_talk:Hatchens#About South Asian Esport Scenario. Also, the ID which has tried to reach out to me tried to create a page for the founder of this not-so-notable esports team. High Possibility: WP:COI/WP:UPE/WP:SOCK. -Hatchens (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens: It's already known that Abhayesports has a COI with Salwart Esports (see Talk:Stalwart Esports); hence why, I assume, they have not included themselves in this Afd discussion. Moreover, I believe they were just trying to inform you as to why there is no ESL participation (which isn't a necessity for notability -- I'm not sure why that was included in the deletion rationale). Let's AGF here. — Pbrks (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Hatchens, I Could've commented it here but i'm under a COI with Stalwart Esports, My only reason to write it to you privately was to aware you of the esport scenario in south asia since you've mentioned that it doesn't have ESL Participation. it's clearly evident that you're not acting in a good faith, you're accusing me of Sockpuppetry just because i tried to enlighten you about the information you didn't have? Did it hurt your ego? I have no idea who you are but as far as the sources are considered, They clearly satisfy WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:VG. Also that wasn't a vague lecture but something you didn't have idea of. The proof to this is your response to my message, you clearly don't have an idea of what Major events are and you don't know the difference in between South Asia and South East Asia, i've explained it to you there tho. Me being nice to you there doesn't mean you have the right to speak anything you want,. Please assume good faith here. Good Luck Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pbrks, exactly bro, this is why i didn't comment here, and wanted to just simply tell him that ESL isn't that big in south asia as much it is in NA or EU or some other region. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a declaration the article's talk page with a permanent link: [1]. — Pbrks (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pbrks, Ok, I saw it now. I missed it at the first place. my bad. - Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens, Only if you'd have actually researched before putting it up for AfD you'd have found out that it's declared over the Talk Page of Stalwart Esports, Moreover i've removed it from my Talk Page because i didn't want to edit Stalwart Esports anymore due to the COI, that's why the last edit i made was just to update the logo. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 16:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless there is a reason as to why the given sources that Alyo has provided are not sufficient. — Pbrks (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In total agreement with the analysis of Hatchens. The sources are too weak. These kind of routine coverages doesnt add upto WP:NCORP.. Pillechan(പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 04:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Editor has now been blocked as a sock-puppet. St★lwart111 03:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Delete If we take WP:RS as a basic criteria, there are two sources that shine. First is Indian Express [2] and second one from Vice [3]. Both are about same event (which brings in the question of intellectual independence!) and unfortunately are very borderline to WP:CORPDEPTH. There are bits and pieces which could be considered but as a whole, sort of not getting there. This is very classic when reporters tell what is being told and there is no other efforts for fact check or to enrich the news by more in-depth research. That being said, good possibility that company can become notable in future and recreation should be allowed without prejudices, ideally via AFC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't a company so why on Earth would we apply WP:CORPDEPTH and set an inexplicably higher bar than WP:GNG? Those two sources aren't written by the same people, or even published on the same continent, and they were published more than a month apart. Where is the question of intellectual independence? Multiple people writing about the same thing is exactly what we mean when we talk about significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. St★lwart111 02:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: Nomadicghumakkad was called in here to make a vote by Hatchens by pinging him on his talk page while i was trying to give him information about ESL and South Asia. My conversation at Hatchens Talk Page. Also considering that this Article was once subjected to AfD and was stormed by a group who wanted to get it deleted, i'm not accusing anyone but there could be possibility of the same group acting again. I'd request Admins to look into their accounts as well because the information they're trying to push into this AfD is incorrect, i've given a brief information of why ESL isn't active in south asia at hatchen's talk page. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 10:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know there are few users who are in the hurry to close this discussion. So, I would request to those... please hold patience. Regarding Nomadicghumakkad, he/she is one of the AFC Reviewers whom I trust for withholding Wikipedia guidelines, and let me assure you he/she takes unbiased/uninfluenced call irrespective of what I say. So, it's not a WP:CANVAS - I assure everyone out here. Despite he/she voting for delete, I had a doubt on this entity's classification on Wikipedia - is it WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? To clear it, I religiously went to WP:TEA, raised my concern, and got this particular reply from Usedtobecool. There is still an ambiguity on how to classify an esports team but as per the lede (of this entity) - "it seems to meet the criteria given at NCORP". So, as of now, we will continue to treat it as an "ORGANIZATION" till we get a much better classification. So, my humble request is don't get excited. I'm quite thankful for Abhayesports for declaring WP:COI which I missed seeing in the first place because the tag was put on the entity's talk page rather than on the user page. Now, could you guys just excuse with your interpretations and wait for other's opinions so that a wider consensus can be derived. NOTE: We will use this AfD discussion as one of the case studies to initiate a discussion at Category_talk:Esports_organizations or Talk:Esports or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports and suggest launching a Wikipedia Project Esports to discuss and frame proper guidelines for Esports organizations (Thanks to Gråbergs Gråa Sång for suggesting this). -Hatchens (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue to treat it as such, but we are under no obligation to follow your lead. St★lwart111 11:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a legit question if this is canvasing or not and unfortunately there is no straight answer to it. Hatchens asked to look at this AFD and figure if there was a COI problem. They never said go and participate. So, solely basis on past experiences, theoretically, this is not canvassing. But that's theory of course. In practical sense, if someone tags me to look at an AFD for whatsoever reasons, my likelihood of commenting increases. But I felt this discussion could use some more diverse opinions and hence came here. About Eports teams being a company or not - the way I would look at it, if they are making money in any format (even through cash prizes), they should be considered as a company. But that's my view. Feel free to strike my comment if you felt it didn't give a new perspective and came in here only to support the nominator by adding another invaluable keep. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomadicghumakkad, I trust and value your assessment. I have given necessary explaination. Let the closing admin take the call on your vote. In the meanwhile, keep up the good work at AfC reviewing. - Hatchens (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NCORP applies to organizations of any type whatsoever. There are similar problems for profit making commercial companies as with volunteer organization --basically, they all live by publicity, and will use the press to get it. For all of them, material discussing only routine activities and funding is not enough to show notability. That's the reason for the NCORP restriction--not the desire to reduce coverage, but the need to reduce coi editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a corporation or an organisation. It has no constitution or membership guidelines or process for joining. It's not even a traditional sporting club (which, as a fan, you can become a member of). It's a sports team. The fact that their sport isn't considered a traditional sport does not mean that any kind of organised participation should be disingenuously conflated with the constitution of a formal organisation. St★lwart111 11:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NORG covers any group of more than one person formed together for a purpose, except small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people) and non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. If a group not covered by the exceptions has another specific notability guideline, it can be presumed notable based on that, without meeting NORG (not a direct quote, but also from NORG). When one concedes that esports team are not a traditional sports team and therefore not covered by NSPORTS, and that there is no specific guideline for esports teams, and that it is not among the exceptions listed, then it's simply logical that it is covered by NORG. Usedtobecool☎️ 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's clearly a sports team. That the NSPORTS crowd doesn't want it, or doesn't know what to do with esports yet, does not make that untrue. There have been recent DRV discussions about whether NCORP should apply to corporations ahead of GNG, given the extent to which that guideline seems to have moved away from community sentiment. There's no justification for applying it here except as a tool for setting an artificially higher inclusion threshold, and the arguments above make that plainly clear. St★lwart111 13:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS says there is no community consensus to consider esports a sport (sport is something to which the guideline NSPORTS applies; this is the only definition that's useful here). Even if this AFD did agree it's a sport, there is no corresponding list of criteria at NSPORTS. In absence of alternative specific guidelines for any group of more than one person doing something, NORG applies. The purpose of AFD is to apply existing guidelines and policies as they are, not as one thinks they ought to be. The debates are over interpretation, not merit. Regards! Usedtobecool☎️ 15:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usedtobecool, you know what's the irony - Stalwart111 forcing us to accept this eSports team as per WP:NSPORTS despite we clearly telling him/her... at this moment eSports are not considered to be part of NSPORTS. On the other hand, at an another AfD he/she doesn't want a football club - Luca Soccer Club to be assessed under WP:NFOOTY because he/she thinks WP:GNG is the appropriate guideline and keep the page. I am done explaining and I surrender. I have not seen such poor interpretation of Wiki guidelines on AfD discussions. - Hatchens (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, my argument there is that WP:GNG should apply because WP:GNG is our baseline notability criteria. My argument is the same here. It doesn't matter if that club doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY, because it already passes WP:GNG. And it doesn't matter if this sporting team isn't considered a sporting team or doesn't pass WP:NCORP, because it already passes WP:GNG. It's pretty simply, really. St★lwart111 00:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was investigating the Stalwart for paranormal activity and happened to eyeball check this out for a possible COI which isn't the case, just a random chance as two people might have the same date of birth. The New indian Express and the Vice are good; but checking out the associated "Stalwart Freestyle" starts to bring in Pakistan based resources such as [4], leading to a solid keep; albeit the article might need a move(rename)/redirect(s). Its an alt to deletion though. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I voted for a keep in previous AfD based on Alyo's sources but DGG's arguments above make sense to me. ─ The Aafī(talk) 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are people argues that it should pass WP:NCORP, but there are no consensus on that and are just personal opinions. Until then WP:GNG that matters which it passes already. - The9Man(Talk) 20:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stalwart Esports has never played an international tournament. It is just a small organization that participates in local tournaments. The team also has never won any major local tournament.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page contains only information regarding pubgm and free fire, so this comment should be taken in regard of these games.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya.abh, Hey, i don't think winning any tournament determines notability. But just to answer your question, Stalwart has played all the Pubg Mobile Pro League seasons till date which is a Major PUBG mobile tournament(PP- $200000+) , and has played multiple seasons of Free Fire Indian Championship. Again, even these things don't determine notability on wikipedia. Read WP:GNG. Just helping you out since you're a new esport editor on wikipedia. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abhayesports I don't believe Pubg mobile pro league is a international tournament. You can say it's a qualifying tournament for international tournament. Secondly, playing any 'major' local tournament, shouldn't be considered note worthy. There are dozens of teams who play various pubgm and free fire tournaments in a year, but I don't think that should make them notable.Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya.abh, Oh i see, At the first you say that They haven't played any major tournament hence aren't deemed to be fit on wikipedia later you say playing any major local tournament shouldn't be considered note worthy. You're clearly confused. Also you're actually repeating what i said. Winning or loosing tourneys doesn't make any team notable, They should pass certain parameters on wikipedia to be considered as notable. I'm just assuming good faith here :). Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abhayesports I don't think you are getting my point. Anyways, I once created a page for S8UL Esports which was deleted because of not passing the notability test. It's afd. The organization is superior in notability to stalwart Esports. The page I created can be still seen HERE. Now if that page was deleted for failing notability, the same arguments can be applied here. Peace ✌️☮️Aaditya.abh (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe you are taking this personally because of you having a COI with the topic of the page in question. Aaditya.abh (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya.abh, Hey again, As said i am assuming good faith and just trying to correct your information. Moreover COI is the reason why i haven't made any vote here. But i believe COI can't stop me from defending false information considering that most of the admins might not be well versed with esports and would think that what you've written is correct when it's not. You've posted misleading information above classifying Pro League as a minor event and disregarding FFIC. So i believe it's my duty to raise awareness on the same because a $200k tourney can't be classified as minor. We don't take things personally here, this is a public encyclopaedia and we're all here to contribute. If i wasn't Assuming good faith i'd have dig up that you're doing this just because i commented on your S8UL AfD and disregarded those invalid sources as RS. But i didn't because my sole reason of replying to you was to correct your knowledge on Minor and Major Events in PUBG Mobile. Also just researched another thing, their current PUBG mobile lineup are the former PMPL Champions. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 06:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Alyo and Stalwart111. This is an eSports team, not a company. It was agreed in the previous discussion that the article should be kept. Article is good enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. ASTIG😎(ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an esport team, it's not clear NCORP or NSPORT is the appropriate guideline to apply (i.e. it's controversial either way). As such, for lack of a clear SNG WP:GNG is our default. Based on the evidence from the first AFD, GNG is met.4meter4 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. When it comes to organizations, we need to be mindful that Wikipedia isn't a platform to leverage routine coverage into a promotional tool. I don't believe this meets the WP:GNG with more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but WP:ORG is also instructive. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Could you please elaborate as to how the sources in the article qualify as only trivial mentions? Specifically, [5], [6], and [7]. — Pbrks (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete team has not achieved notable results. They have yet to appear in an S-tier tournament in PUBG which I would assume would be the baseline for a WP:ESPORTS page if it was created. Swordman97talk to me 23:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Swordman97:, I don’t think participation in a certain tournament makes any team notable(as per my understanding of wikipedia’s guidelines), participation in major’s is a notability criteria for liquipedia but wikipedia follows certain guidelines and as per WP:GNG this subject has several WP:RS which meet the guidelines. Moreover, if all the teams who have participated in major’s are notable to have a page on Wikipedia then there are many esport teams out there who should be on WP, moreover can you kindly share the link to the specific guideline about having participation in a major to be notable for WP, Also, just to answer your query, Stalwart has participated in all the 4 seasons of Pubg Mobile Pro league South Asia, which is a major Pubg Mobile tournament, although I don’t believe it matters but still just answering your query. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Participation in the highest level of a sport is the easiest way to achieve notability, which in this case would be the continental series or global championshipglobal championship. They have not achieved that yet and they are not an especially winning or notable team so they don't need an article. Swordman97talk to me 04:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Swordman97: This is not a valid reason for keeping/deleting an article, as any sort of WP:NESPORTS does not exist. Please explain why the sources present in the article do not demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT is what I was referencing. In any case I agree with Nomad with their view of the article. The sources are too trivial. Swordman97talk to me 04:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPORTSCRIT does not apply to esports articles, as WP:NSPORTS does not in general. I fail to see how the sources are trivial. The Vice, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports articles contain significant non-trivial coverage of the topic. — Pbrks (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of sources used on the page are not considered reliable. Sportskeeda and The Times of Esports are not considered reliable.Gyan.Know (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyan.Know: You may be correct (I haven't checked The Times of Esports) that these are not considered reliable. However, Vice, The Indian Express, The Esports Observer, and Dot Esports are. Please explain why these sources are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Aaditya.abh, who has participated in this discussion previously, changed their username to Gyan.Know. — Pbrks (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbrks: The sources you mentioned latter are reliable and contribute to page's notability.
But as you can see on the page, some of the information provided is original research and no sources are provided as to that. In short, lack of sources for information on the page. Gyan.Know (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyan.Know: This isn't how WP:AfD works. In general, if reliable, secondary, independent sources with significant coverage of the topic exist, then the article satisfies WP:GNG. An article may contain original research or some poor sources, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. — Pbrks (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbrks: The Free Fire section of the page does not cite a single source. And going accordingly to your points, it is okay for that information to be there? Gyan.Know (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what we are discussing. The main question is whether or not the reliable sources that do exist (see the sources Alyo provided here) demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom. Not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gentleman wiki do you mind specifying wihch part of the nom you agree with? That the team is not famous because they've not been in an ESL tournament, which isn't based on any policy guideline, or that sources like this, this, and this fail sigcov and GNG, which seems...like a statement that needs some justification. Alyo(chat·edits) 17:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems to me that the crux of this debate is whether NCORP applies to this esports team or not, and for this I feel we should ignore the letter of the policies, as clearly they are insufficient for this edge case and instead consider the intent, which is as a line of defence against the proliferation of corporate spam. Per this SPI, this article was created by a sockmaster pushing very hard for articles about the matter and other associated individuals which suggests a COI; as such, I feel it is appropriate to consider this under NCORP which means delete is the appropriate decision. I was actually expecting this line of argument to lead to a "Keep" !vote when I started down it, but I guess I was wrong BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, I'd like to understand your rationale here... are you saying that because the creator might have a COI (which you agree is suggested, but not confirmed) we should apply an irrelevant - but stricter - guideline to ensure it is deleted to protect the project from said suggested COI? St★lwart111 00:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a way. It is unclear whether the WP:NCORP applies; there are arguments for and against. I probably lean towards the "for" argument, as these teams are for-profit entities that relying on popularity, at least in part, for their revenue.
However, I decided that the situation was sufficiently nebulous that we would be better off considering the spirit of WP:NCORP, not the word, and to do this I thought we should look into the background of the article's creators; did they create it "under a cloud", is it reasonable to expect a COI or UPE to exist. To my surprise, it turned out that such a cloud existed, and thus it seems in line with the spirit of NCORP to apply it, and as there seems to be a consensus that the article should be deleted if NCORP applies, the only reasonable result, in my opinion, is delete. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the author having a COI wouldn't be a reason for deletion in the first place, so applying an inapplicable guideline just to produce that result doesn't seem appropriate. The author's COI, or potential COI, isn't even something WP:NCORP considers, so it seems particularly bloody-minded to apply that guideline as some kind of strawman. The arguments in favour of deletion want to disingenuously apply WP:NCORP for the same reason; the subject doesn't pass that guideline so if they can argue that guideline should apply, they can have it deleted. "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid". This fish should not be expected to climb that tree. St★lwart111 00:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources look fine to me, and I don't think any higher standard above WP:GNG should be applied here. Whether the creator of the page was or was not a spammer or did or did not have a conflict of interest is irrelevant; what matters is whether it meets the applicable policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, it does. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our WP:GNG. The first AFD, also found that GNG is met. Lightburst (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG that news coverage of routine doings of commercial organizations is insufficient for notability and that WP:NCORP applies. Besides, due to the problem of paid news in India, the Indian new sources cited in the article cannot be relied upon. Sandstein 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to tell Wikipedia:WikiProject India that most of their articles will need to be deleted? These contributions are getting insane, and insanely bad faith. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I have argued above, WP:NCORP applies, and the topic fails it.Even WP:GNG is not met. WP:GNG is a criterion for a presumption that if these sources exist, it must be a topic worth knowing about (encyclopedic knowledge), and there must be more, enough to support a detailed and balanced article. The links that have been presented here for the purpose do not inspire confidence wrto. either. It was interesting and newsworthy when people from rival nations cooperated and it brought temporary media attention; that is not enough for notability which is more permanent. We could as well use the same references and write 2020 cooperation between Indian and Pakistani gamers to participate in the PUBG Mobile Pro League South Asia after PUBG was banned in India, except it's not a notable event under the same sources. How can the same sources make an event non-notable and a group of people notable? They don't. If this is not an organisation, it's a group of people involved in an event. That event is not notable and regardless, the group fails WP:BIO1E. The only escape is to make this group a sports team which is against community consensus. Even if it weren't, it fails any reasonable sporting guideline we might have come up with, as the coverage is about a single event, the filling of roster (not playing) for a competition that is not played at the highest level.Regards! Usedtobecool☎️ 04:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that WP:NCORP applies here. NCORP is broader than WP:NSPORT when it comes to sports teams, which are "organizations" -- NSPORT would be an "escape route" from NCORP application by way of specificity, but since esports are not categorized as sports for the purposes of NSPORT, this article can't escape NCORP. Subject fails NCORP. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, amid all of that hand-wringing, confusion, disagreement, escapism, and guideline boundary-setting, we still have WP:GNG, right? Phew. St★lwart111 02:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't actually, because whenever NCORP is applicable it has priority application over GNG (it overrides GNG). NCORP is famous for this. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm unsure about the specifics of WP:NCORP vs WP:NSPORT which seems like a wider discussion, but for me the article passes WP:GNG , and nothing has shown the original decision should be overriden. Vanteloop (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanteloop: It isn't complicated, but it has a certain logic that needs to be followed. It isn't about a wider discussion, just about logic:
NSPORT deals only with things commonly held to be sport, and not with things only sometimes referred to as a sport or things that share some common elements with sport
The community does not hold that esports are sport (there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether they are or aren't, which has been noted down)
Therefore: NSPORT doesn't apply to esports -- so what does?
Regardless of differences between esports and sport, esports teams, like sports teams, are organizations
NCORP applies to organizations in general (had NSPORT not existed, the applicable guideline for sports teams would have been NCORP)
therefore: it is NCORP that applies to esport teams
this esports team as a subject of encyclopedic coverage doesn't pass NCORP (for obvious reasons)
when NCORP is the controlling norm and subject doesn't pass NCORP, said subject is non-notable, because there is no other way notability can be established or presumed for it (such as GNG, because NCORP, within it's area of application, is applied not in tandem with GNG, but instead of GNG)
therefore: the subject is non-notable
and ultimately: this article (being that it deals with a non-notable subject) should be deleted — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meets WP:GNG" has one step: "1. Subject meets WP:GNG." Besides which, the WP:NTEAM section of WP:NSPORTS makes it quite clear that NSPORTS doesn't have criteria for teams anyway, and says the fall-back for sports teams and clubs is WP:GNG, not WP:NCORP: "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.". Your novel 10-step interpretation isn't supported by that guideline at all. St★lwart111 09:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's a useful summary of the argument, but I think the situation is genuinely quite murky. WP:NCORP is quite clear that sports teams are not covered: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams." However, whether esports teams are "sports teams" is the question at issue here! If they aren't sports teams, then they are clearly a "group of people organized together for a purpose" and so are covered by WP:NCORP. If they are sports teams, then they are specifically exempted from WP:NCORP and covered by WP:NSPORTS (which as you point out just defers directly to WP:GNG for sports teams). So Alalch Emis's point (4) is incorrectly stated, and in fact the argument for which notability guideline to apply hinges on whether esports teams are sports teams. Suriname0 (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.