Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekkles

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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rekkles

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

I do not believe that "e-athletes" are notable unless they pass the GNG. Being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot, which tells "untold stories unfolding online" (in other words, they tell what wasn't notable enough to be picked up by real reliable sources), does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already included a newspaper article all about him, in Aftonbladet, and extended mentions in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I found further news coverage and fully identified everything so it's now easier to evaluate the coverage, which does meet GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvadottir, the "extended mention" in USA Today is about ten sentences. Expressen gives him three sentences. The Wall Street Journal article is the only that can be said to say something a bit substantial about him. Being interviewed in Aftonbladet surely is something, but whether it is extensive coverage--it is if your standards are pretty low and and oriented toward trendworthy topics. So, sorry, but while I appreciate the effort, I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: I'm going to ask you to look again. I count 5 major-media articles about Rekkles in the article right now. (I found and added 2 more after posting here, and when I started typing this, the only edit after mine was to the categories.) Admittedly Aftonbladet 2014-10-24 cites Reddit as its source, and is partly about somebody else, but it's headlined about Rekkles and was written to report what he's doing. Admittedly also, the Expressen article is short (and that's a tabloid), but it's all about Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2015-08-24 is mostly interview, but again, it was written to update us on Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2016-06-19, which as you noted was in Xender Lourdes' search results, is not substantially an interview, and I'll be adding it to the article if someone else doesn't—I suspect Google didn't show it to me because it's so new. To offset the gradual impression that he's just a favorite with Aftonbladet's writers, there's also Nyheter24 2014-01-24 (brief article all about Rekkles and self-made video)—and Sveriges Radio 2012-11-27 is an article about him with a 9-minute interview recording embedded. That's a lot of coverage in several important outlets, and I think the date range—from late in 2012 to halfway through 2016—also speaks to genuine notability. I can't read the German source to see how much of it is about Rekkles because I'm not going to disable AdBlock. And I don't know how reliable a source The Score eSports.com is, but that again is an article about his team where the hook for the article is Rekkles. Add to those the fact he's among those mentioned prominently in the USA Today and WSJ articles, and I am seeing a constant stream of coverage in independent reliable sources, a lot of which is extended coverage and the breadth of the rest of which is non-trivial. So regardless of my opinion of his line of work or of news outlets' strategies to get clicks (I note with respect that Aftonbladet tends to post English translations as an alternative to the Swedish), I do believe he meets our general notability standard as written. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S.Keep Drmies.... b4... Lourdes 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Xender Lourdes, you can "BEFORE" me all you want, but all you are presenting is a Google search, and WP:GOOGLEHITS. But, if you like, in order: [forg1ven-was-losing-rekkles-niels someone mentions him on an ESPN page] (link screwed up because of square brackets in URL title), he has a Twitter feed, he is mentioned on a blog in a three-sentence long press release, he gets a five-paragraph interview in a Swedish paper, the first reliable and independent source in your list, [http://www.gamingesports.com/actualidad-esports/league-of-legends/rekkles-sobre-yellowstar-estamos-mas-juntos-que-nunca/ here's four sentences from a gaming blog, God knows who reprinted these four sentences but it doesn't look like a newspaper/site, and here's another blog. I can go on, but WP:RS please. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called a "blog", but Blog of Legends is owned by Time Inc., the same holdings company for Time Magazine.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply you've placed. May I apologise if my one line keep statement above came out a tad negatively? I did not intend that. I respect your experience, views and discretion considerably. I linked to the google hits (a first for me too in all my Afd discussions till date) to simply perhaps nudge you (wrongly done to an experienced editor, now that I think of it) to the fact that the google search would have thrown up absolutely reliable sources (two mentioned by Yngvadottir above and another a WSJ foreign language edition) and significant interviews like this and this. Add the WSJ stuff and you have to give credit to the coverage. If we are not going to consider these as significant coverages, then I fear we are setting standards too high and being judgemental about each and every topic in nsports. My apologies once more for the earlier one line statement. This is a strong keep as per me. Thanks. Lourdes 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xender, no problem, thank you for your note. I continue to disagree, however, with you, and I do not wish to lower our notability standards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if this article is kept, there will need to be a serious evaluation of all esports articles, as there are hundreds that require urgent attention, as they're collectively not up to par with Wikipedia's standards. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthBotto: I have just raised your concern at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure when the WSJ and USA Today became "being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot," and the characterization may be a bit disingenuous. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Draft instead because, while these articles have been starting noticeably numerously, there's still questionability for several, and it's best to be careful with these. I suggest this one be removed for now as there's still not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided and linked to above indicate that he is one of the best League players for his position and that that he passes WP:BASIC and probably WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous reliable sources as pointed out above, and also appeared as in a WP:PRINT source.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2016 (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.