Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) (2nd 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. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Wunder (gamer)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer)
• Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Wunder (gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was deleted on the 8th of April after this AfD. An editor then went into overdrive and, unilaterally and without the text getting any approval, had the article back up after two days, now with some 85 instead of 4 cited sources. But does quantity translate into quality? I propose the article be deleted and salted. For a forensic analysis of the sources, or, more accurately, the lack thereof, check the talk page. -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging participants in the previous AfD discusion as well as the editor who posted the article up again: Ficaia, ferret, Chaddude14. Also, the admin who decided on it: Liz. -The Gnome (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mild Delete Most seem to be name-drops, some coverage, not sure I see notability, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing has changed since the last AFD. I checked several sources and found that they didn't even mention Wunder. Refbombing doesn't make GNG. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'll be honest, I was surprised to see the revamped article moved to main space so quickly. I restored the page on the condition that I would move it to User space where I thought it would be gradually improved and be submitted to AFC for review, which I also requested. I've seen other admins who patrol AFD honor requests such as this one with similar conditions. Of course, I'll let another admin evaluate the consensus on this 2nd AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Searches here and here do not show any sources that qualify as WP:SIGCOV nor establish WP:NOTABLE. The article appears to have been ref-bombed, giving the appearance of being a well-referenced article, but all 85 "references" are either trivial mentions, routine coverage or don't mention Wunder at all. Article appears to be a slick attempt (by whomever) created it to give the appearance of notability where little or none actually exists.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Striking previous vote; changing to Keep - article appears to have been fixed since I originally voted !delete. The way Pbrks edited the article appears to have addressed both the refbombing as well as the SIGCOV and RS issues. The way the article was in its original state would've warranted deletion (in the absence of additional sources), but the way Pbrks edited the article with much higher quality sources seems to be enough to save this one from AFD (seeing as all of the arguments for delete are from before Pbrks's rewrite).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I fail to see how articles such as these count as "trivial mentions", as all of them are focused on the player specifically. Having 9 All-Pros, 4 Championships, and an International title make him one of the best Western League of Legends players of all time, and I think some of the people voting don't realize the significance of some of these "passing mentions". In most major sports just appearing in a single regular season game qualifies a person as notable, so when you note that the the League World Championships have has more viewers then the NBA finals for the past 4 years in shows that there are clearly some criteria lacking in what makes any esports player notable. Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world, and he has 2 ESPN articles exclusively focused on him. Not only should this article be kept, the Wikipedia policy for League of Legends players should be clarified, preferably by those who have some knowledge of the scene in general. Chaddude (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Wunder is a household name in the most popular esport in the world": That is, essentially, the totality of the argument promoted by the Keep suggestions both here and in the previous AfD. An assertion using circular logic, precisely as described in WP:ASSERTN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Source 1: Doesn't aid WP:N as it's written by him. #2: Says he re-signed, and that's it. Routine coverage. #3 and #4 I agree (and posted in the last AFD) are pretty decently in-depth. These are the best sources about him. #5 is kinda routine coverage and doesn't really say much about him. #6 doesn't seem like a source generally used by Wikipedia and may not be reliable, but is also an interview which are given less weight for GNG, as they aren't independent. #7 Non-independent interview. #8 is less about him and more a play by play of a specific match. I don't think the specific source is one we'd consider reliable either. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright how about ? Also it's worth noting that although some of these are "kinda routine coverage" they have more info they just "he resigned", they talk about his accomplishements and statistics and his pllay. Chaddude (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Source #5 is a repeat, you already used it above. #1 is covering a twitch stream of Wunder, so I'd treat it as semi-non-independent, almost self-interview. Just reporting what he said. #2 I'd like to see WP:VG/RS mull on for reliability, but they're also simply re-reporting Dotesports, as stated at the beginning. You already gave that source the first time above. #3 is re-reporting Esportstalk (#2), who as noted, is re-reporting Dotesports. This is just esports sites mimicking each other's news. #4 is a little better, but not much actual substance exists here from a weak source that while reliable, is dedicated to covering this very thing. #6 and #7... I mean. More routine Dotesports. Are you really arguing that the fact that Dotesports reported Wunder trolled another team mid-match is a seriously noteworthy event? This mostly boils down to two good ESPN sources, a lot of routine coverage by Dotesport, and a few sites reporting what Dotesports already reported (and crediting it to boot). -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The searches by Mythdon are done incorectly, adding "Gamer" will not find results, as that is not a term used by any form of media or people in the scene. Try seaching -- "Wunder" League of Legends -Wikipedia --. Chaddude (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but needs a significant rewrite, as I noted on the {{cleanup}} tag on the article. After some digging, I found a decent amount of sources. The best sources I can find are the following (which are duplicates from above):

• Wonderboy: the rise of G2's Wunder, ESPN
• Splyce's Wunder: "In mid and late game, we're the best team in the league right now", ESPN

The following are significant pieces (not routine, not non-noteworthy) from Dot Esports, which has been recently been discussed at WP:VGRS, and the consensus is that it is reliable:

• Wunder is the player to watch in the EU LCS Final, Dot Esports
• G2 coach GrabbZ on Wunder: ‘He was one of the most consistent performers in scrims over the years’, Dot Esports
• Wunder is our MVP of the Rift Rivals group stage, Dot Esports

The following are a bit less in-depth, but still pretty solid:

• Wunder: Splyce's strategic woes are 'easily solvable', ESPN
• Top five top laners at the League of Legends World Championship, ESPN
• Unflappable G2 Esports and Wunder fly to LEC summer finals, ESPN
• Only Worlds is left to win for wonderkid Wunder, Red Bull
• G2 Esports’ Wunder gives us his Worlds group stage thoughts, Red Bull. Note: Not a true interview. Includes his thoughts, as well as some info about his performance throughout the season.
• High hopes and tough tasks: Will Fnatic’s new League roster meet expectations in 2022?, Dot Esports

In addition, he has appeared on CNN, although the video does not seem to work anymore, so I can't really see what it is, so take it for what its worth (looks like just an interview though). – Pbrks ^(t • c) 03:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I truly do not understand this. I presented in detail the invoked sources and showed how they're almost always referring to the team and not the player himself. If the team is notable, and it is on the basis of sources, this does not mean that all its players or its best players, as the case might be, are notable. It does not, no matter how we twist the data. Notability is not distributed Nor inherited. That's all there is to it. The effort of gaming enthusiasts to have an entry for a "great gamer" is admirable but this is the Wikipedia; Not a directory of egaming. -The Gnome (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you actually read these sources if you think that they're about the team and not the person, particularly "Wonderboy: the rise of G2's Wunder", "Splyce's Wunder: 'In mid and late game, we're the best team in the league right now'", and "Wunder is the player to watch in the EU LCS Final" which are entirely about him. The one twisting the data here is you. And I hope you didn't intend this, but that last sentence of yours comes across as extraordinarily condescending and patronizing. Mlb96 (talk) 07:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  While I appreciate the feedback, I don't appreciate the implication that I am trying to somehow misrepresent the coverage of the above sources due to being a "gaming enthusiast." In fact, my first inclination was to vote delete, since the article contains a ton of bloat, as you noted on the talk page. However, a list of inapplicable sources towards demonstrating notability is not grounds for deletion. I have presented a handful here that, frankly, clearly demonstrate notability. While they do indeed contain some coverage of the team's performance — of course, he is a part of that team, after all — they have solid coverage of the subject specifically. There are many esports articles currently published that are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, but this is not one of them. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 13:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep The sources mentioned by Pbrks, particularly these three sources, are more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mlb96 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep per source analysis by ferret and Pbrks. I think there is enough material specifically about him to write a short article, although I do wonder what would motivate someone to go to such lengths to salvage an article about an individual who is probably borderline notable. If there is a suitable merge target, like an article about one of his teams, I suppose it could be merged there as an alternate to deletion, but no one has so far argued for that position yet. Haleth (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A constructive proposal this. It would be quite appropriate to Merge this (actually very weakly sourced) text into Splyce, the article about the team to which practically all sources are referring anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to strike my Delete at this time. The two ESPN sources, which I noted at the first AFD, are great. However I have a lot of concerns about Dotesports being used to judge notability. It's a weak source, which is regularly rejected at FAC, and wholly dedicated to reporting 'everything' esports. Additionally, I don't view Redbull as independent as they sponsor and host ESports. I'd really really like to see two more in-depth sources that aren't a specialist site or re-reporting Dotesports. I understand my position is likely stricter than others, but notability being decided on essentially the backs of two specialist sites (one general sports, one wholly esports) feels off to me. A merge or redirect is also a fine outcome. So much of the news is routine team updates. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  I hope you'll reconsider your position on determining notability this way. For example, video games articles seem to be just fine when there are sources from reliable gaming sites, e.g., PCGamer, GameSpot, Eurogamer. I understand that this is a whataboutism, but I don't see why would we set a different bar for esports articles and reliable sports sites. I do agree that, as with just about every news outlet, a generally reliable site does not necessarily mean that every bit of its content is applicable when determining notability, but the Dot Esports articles that I provided are good, in-depth articles — not fluff pieces. Tag those along with the ESPN ones, and I just fail to see how this does not pass GNG. As a note, Dot Esports was questioned once at FAC (I double-checked with a search, but correct me if I am mistaken), which led to the discussion at VGRS, so "regularly" doesn't seem appropriate. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's a little less about specialist sites, though I'd like to see non-specialist, and more than it's hinging on literally two publications. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Pbrks, the discussion at the link you gave concludes with a resolute "All but one references to Dot Esports have been purged." It speaks for itself, this. -The Gnome (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  @The Gnome: Please look at the entire context. The references were removed to appease one reviewer, yet a follow-up, full discussion at WP:VGRS determined that it is reliable. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The minimum to demonstrate notability is generally two to three high quality sources. Pbrks has presented at least three, which I pointed out in my !vote. Whether Dot Esports is a "specialist site" is wholly unimportant, as it has been determined to be a reliable source. Mlb96 (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the bare minimum is (typically) three high quality sources. That doesn't mean that three demonstrates notability, simply that it's the bare minimum. A discussion can always determine otherwise. I don't feel the bar is met, especially for high quality, and I've explained my reasoning, is all. I'm well aware you disagree, that's fine. -- ferret (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe your position is in accord with policy. I feel that you are setting a much higher bar than WP:GNG actually requires. Mlb96 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nope. We know where the bar is. Take as an example, one among many, the bar set for actors. The relevant guideline requires that, to post up an actor's bio, the actor must have had significant roles in multiple notable films. Emphasis added. There's your bar. We require multiple and significant reports, they must come from reliable sources, and they must be specifically about our subject; not simple mentions, not name-drops, not interviews, and not reports about something else. Actually, ferret is trying here to keep the bar from hitting a very lowpoint. -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)lb96|Mlb96]] (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Please just stop, this is embarrassing. Not only did you not read any of the sources, you also don't seem to know the difference between GNG and SNGs. Mlb96 (talk) 04:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, but WP:N and WP:GNG are a guideline, not a policy, and they set lines in the sand for presumed notability, very clearly stating that a discussion and review of sources may find otherwise. I believe this is an otherwise case, you don't. That's fine! I openly admit I set a higher bar than many do. -- ferret (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Per Pbrks and Mlb. I consider ESPN to be a very high quality source for it's subject area, so that & the Dot Esports which has be regarded as reliable per consensus I consider that good enough for GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 19:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Almost all the ESPN reports are game reporta, series coverage, and the like. Same goes for most Dot Esports links. Why not vist the talk page and see the analysis? -The Gnome (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

But they're not? That's just an objectively false statement. Did you click on any the 10 links provided by Pbrks? Not game reports, nor series coverage, they are pieces on Wunder as an individual. Same goes for the Dot Esports Links, the three listed in no way fall into the categories you claim they are a part of. Chaddude (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While this does not affect most of the above arguments, it should be known that I have rewritten the article, alleviating the REFBOMB issue. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 20:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. Despite the bloated feel and apparent circumvention, subject is notable and has enough independent and reliable sources to warrant an article. After rewrite, does not seem to have an issue. NiklausGerard (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. The presence of any reliable source coverage discussing him independently probably makes this article above-average for a biography of someone mest known competing in team sports. I'm sympathetic to the notion that sometimes we let non-notable subjects slide by through inheritance. When I think of that, though, I think of cases where coverage is "a mile wide and an inch deep". That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:27, 16 April 2022 (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.