Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wunder (gamer) (2nd nomination)

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)

• 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)