Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjas in Pyjamas (second nomination)
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although this was kept during a previous flawed AfD, there's still no sources here for the article's tenuous claims of notability. If everything on this article was completely made up, who would know? And even if sources are provided, I still can't see that gaming clans are automatically notable for their own sake. wikipediatrix 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because as a professional electronic sports team, they are, in fact, notable. If you simply follow the link to their own website, you'll see that it's not all "completely made up". I will do some searching on the three websites mentioned in the first paragraph (Fragbite, Amped eSports and GotFrag). What was flawed about the prior AfD? Only two users voted for deletion and every other user provided reasons to keep which were not refuted. Where's the lack of consensus? --Habap 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Simply following the link to their website" doesn't provide proper independent third-party references on the article. The previous AfD was flawed for many reasons: 1. User:Splash voted in it and yet also closed it. 2. The VfD process wasn't properly completed as User:Mel Etitis notes. 3. None of the "keep" votes provided any policy or guideline-based reasons - they simply gave personal opinions like "I've heard of this group", "They're apparently very well-known", and "they are one of the best teams in their business". These are not valid criteria. wikipediatrix 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I took some of the links provided by Flook in the last AfD and gathered some 2006 refs, so now the article does have some references. I suggest you re-read Flooks comments, as they actually did include notability information. --Habap 16:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also re-read User:Mel Etitis's comment on 2 August, which states I've now added it to today's page, and the VfD will have to run its course from now. It was not closed until 4 August (which is probably not sufficient time, but only two users commented in those 2 days (about 3 weeks after the article was tagged). He did not state that it was not properly completed (as it had not yet been completed), but rather that it was not properly formed and that it would run its course. On the other hand, I think the article needs to be improved beyond its current state, so this nomination is helping. --Habap 14:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability, source links in the intro are all just main pages. -Lapinmies 15:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise good. Also, an article not being sourced is no reason for deletion, tag it and move along. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although lack of sources is not a deletion criteria, it CAN make the difference between keep and delete if there is no proof for the article's claim for the subject's notability. Your rationale of "Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise good" does not address the notability of the subject in any way. wikipediatrix 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the prior AfD, the notability is that they actually earn enough money playing silly games (prizes, appearance fees, endorsements and sponsorships) that they don't need "real jobs". There are only a few teams like this in the world and that makes them notable. Gaming clans in general are non-notable because they are fleeting collection of "internet friends" that are no more notable than someone's Tuesday bowling league. NiP, Team 3D, SK Gaming and Team NoA are long-lasting professional organizations that are focussed on being profitable business ventures, not random collections of friends who like to play. --Habap 14:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although lack of sources is not a deletion criteria, it CAN make the difference between keep and delete if there is no proof for the article's claim for the subject's notability. Your rationale of "Needs heavy cleanup, but otherwise good" does not address the notability of the subject in any way. wikipediatrix 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These guys have been covered by publications worldwide, as part of their CPL and WCG campaigns. They have won hundreds of thousands of dollars between them, and have major industry sponsors. Compare this to the "expert" undeletion of Girly[1], a webcomic which managed to become selfsustaining(WOW!) and was nominated for a subtrivial web award. - Hahnchen 01:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article's fine with the sources that are there. DarkSaber2k 15:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with a cleanup. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, legendary counterstrike clan, one of the most well known there is. bbx 08:04, 27 November 2006 (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.