From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 August 1
2016 August 3 >

2 August 2016

  • MonteCristo – Alright, this is the first time I've closed a long and complex discussion, so I may have made a mistake. In this case, please complain at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus.
  • There are a few conclusions to take from this. First, that the article was DRV'ed so soon after the previous deletion reviews and AfD discussions may not have been the best idea judging from the tone of some of the replies. Sometimes waiting a bit before rehashing a many-times discussed subject is a better way to go around. That the topic of e-sports and their notability is contentious - there is a longish discussion at the Village Pump about making a specific notability guideline for them - probably also didn't help.
  • Second, the original AfD closure(s) are endorsed. There is little support for the notion that the AfD closes were improper in any way and plenty of support for their conclusions. There are some suggestions that the AfDs were influenced by the discovery of sockpuppetry in the first, and by the effects of the DRV in the second.
  • The third bit is the toughest - whether to allow the main paging of Draft:Christopher Mykkles and potentially a new AfD, given that new sources have been brought up and the reviews of the AfC submission questioned on the claim that the declines were predicated on the AfDs for prior versions of the article rather than the merits of the draft. Many commenters who endorsed the prior closures of the AfDs did not comment on the new souces, there does not seem to be a clear consensus on them with arguments being raised in either direction (Too "niche"? Reliable enough? Too much like an opinion column? Or too dependent on it? Respected magazine?) and the numbers don't help. At the end of the DRV, a number of users opined to allow recreation on the basis of these new sources and optionally a third AfD to definitively settle whether the new sources support an article under WP:GNG. And while DRV does usually assess whether the decision-making of prior deletion discussions was sound, it can also review whether there is enough material to reverse the outcome of a prior discussion. Thus, I shall close this as Endorse, but allow recreation from the previous draft with subsequent AfD to settle the notability/"do the (new) sources support notability" question - questions that are typically decided at AfD anyway.
  • Regards – Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Christopher Mykkles ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)
MonteCristo ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Subject's role as the owner of a recently banned team, combined with previous events, should be enough to pass WP:GNG now. Draft can be found at Draft:Christopher Mykkles. A recent version of the draft was accepted by a AFC review who is well versed in Wikipedia guidelines, however it was moved back to draftspace, and not because of the AFD concensus but because I had requested it because I didn't want to have too many AFDs to deal with at the same time. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Under our current description of WP:GNG, this is more than enough to pass.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Mainspace it I'm simply not getting why these eSports folks are getting so much hassle. The sourcing is fine, GNG is more than more than met. Can someone who's opposed please explain to me what the perceived problem is? Jclemens ( talk) 01:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy close, as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I'm also confused. The AfD was, with the sole exception of Prisencolin, unanimous to delete. So we're being asked to overturn that? On the basis of, what? That everybody who didn't agree with you was wrong? And, if it's been rejected at WP:AfC three times in the past few days, on what basis are we supposed to overturn that? Oh, I guess all the AfC reviewers were just wrong too? I also reject the concept of The Daily Dot as a source on which we base notability. It's hardly better than a blog. It didn't even exist 5 years ago. On their own about page, they proclaim, The Daily Dot surfaces stories that no one else is talking about. Well, yeah, that's exactly the problem. I kind of got excited by the quote from the NY Times, The Daily Dot did the Internet a favor., until I tracked down the source and discovered that first, it's from an opinion column, and second, it's taken horribly out of context. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'm also seeking deletion review for the following purpose. "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page", as much as disputing the afd. There was an op ed in espn about the Riot ban on MonteCristo's team and MonteCristo's publication of a response video and documents. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NEWSORG, ... (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I'm not sure how to parse your sentence. Did you mean that the op-ed was about MonteCristo's publication of a response video, or are you saying that MonteCristo's publication of a response video is a distinct source from the ESPN op-ed? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm saying that the espn article was about those two things, MontrCristo's own documents and video would be a primary source, so not to be considered for notability purposes. The Espn article has the look and feel of an op-ed, but it's not posted in a dedicated op-ed section and its also written by the staf, strange. Besides, even if op-eds aren't permissible as statements of fact, its still permissible to prove notability.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 16:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I thinking criticizing the quality of The Daily Dot over some random mottos is pushing it a little. It has been discussed at the reliable sources notice board, here and here and both discussions seemed to conclude that Daily Dot is reliable, but were about a particular writer who isn't involved with eSports. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
For disclosure, I've also posted another thread asking about the Daily Dot over at the noticeboard right now.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ RoySmith: Just to be sure, is this an endorse vote? Because you didn't explicitly say so in boldface.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 22:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and close per RoySmith. There was near unanimous consensus at AFD, and has since been rejected 3 times in 3 days at WP:AFC. This isn't a second AFD (or a fourth AFC review.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and close- this DRV does nothing but re-argue the AfD. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. The purpose of DRV is not to keep re-re-re-re-arguing AfDs in the hope of finally ending up with a sufficiently inclusionist audience. Looking forward to seeing you re-argue the AfD a third time next week after this article is userfied, restored to mainspace unchanged, and correctly G4'd. That stratagem worked last time, over my objections. Reyk YO! 08:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • In case this got buried in the text below, there have been several new sources published since the second AFD.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • (Had a lot more comments, but they weren't helpful, see history for details) We really don't want people bringing back articles over-and-over again without change. So has there been more sources since the two AfDs? this Daily Dot article is solely about the subject and was written in the last week. This PCgamer article was also written in the last two weeks. That may not be enough to overturn the AfD (though I'd claim it's close) but it is enough to send back to AfD. List at AfD with a specific note that !votes based on the history of the article will be ignored as they always should be. Our inclusion guidelines are about sources on the subject of the article, not editors and our history with the article. Hobit ( talk) 10:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't consider PCGamer to be a useful source. They are a niche publication that focuses on a very narrow topic. They print anything and everything that's related to that topic. In the case of the specific article cited, it's not even original; it's a rehash of what ESPN published: a new ESPN report provides some background and context from the banned team's point of view. It's a lengthy report, but here are some of the key points. PCGamer is one of the many properties in the Future PLC portfolio. According to Future PLC's website, they have a portfolio of over 200 print titles, apps, websites and events, and Approximately 500 employees. So, with an average of 2.5 employees (which includes everybody from the CEO down to whoever restocks the office coffee pot) per property, how much editorial judgement do you think they're applying? The answer is, pretty much none. They search the internet for anything that's related to any of their properties, give it a once-over to avoid copyright issues, and push it out to the site, where it's fodder for the advertising syndication engines. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't know much about video gaming, but PC Gamer appears to be one of the most respected magazines in the field. According to our article, it's got a couple of dozen staff writers, a handful of which have Wikipedia articles themselves. It's listed as a reliable source for video games [1] and has been around 24 years publishing 13 magazines each year. From what I can tell, it's one of the oldest and most respected magazines in the field. It's owner is the 6th largest media company in the UK (according to our article on it). It is clearly a reliable source and has been used as such here for years and years. Hobit ( talk) 02:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Followup to this: PC games (the subject said to be niche) make up about $27 billion dollars in sales per year right now [2]. Golf is at $70 billion [3], Tennis at under $6 billion [4]. PC gaming heavily beats both in terms of number of participants and total hours played. If this is niche, so is golf and tennis. Hobit ( talk) 12:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The PC Gamer article, written by Shaun Prescott, call it a "rehash" of the ESPN article but it summarize the main points of the ESPN article in a concise and objective way and should a valid piece of journalism in its own right. Besides, we have no guidelines that say this kind of writing is impermissible as a reliable source. Finally, do you honestly think they only have around 2 employees working on their main news website?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • List at new AfD. I am not comfortable that the most recent AfD resulted in a fair and representative outcome. It was speedily closed in less than 24 hrs, and was clearly dominated by participants in the previous DRV brought there by Sandstein's ping (which I realize was not his intention), who mainly commented on their frustration with the article's deletion-process history rather than on the substantive question of notability. I don't mean to suggest that WP:CANVASS was violated or anything of that nature, but all the same I think it's fair to say that the larger community was not given adequate opportunity to weigh in on the question of whether or not the latest version of the article meets WP:GNG or not. (To me, it seems that there is a credible argument that it does meet GNG, and that it is well within the grey area where an AfD might go either way). A new AfD should be allowed to run for the full seven days. Thparkth ( talk) 13:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation, yes every close against this was wrong, if we based arguments on consensus based arguments this should be closed as no consensus. The three rejections at AfC were wrong, yes this is all possible, and the idea to maintain incorrect closure is ... well, obviously wrong. This subject has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, far beyond what is required for WP:GNG
    • Jacob Wolf (2016-07-26). "Renegades, Riot and the danger of absolute power". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2016-08-03.

      The article notes:

      On May 8, Riot Games permanently banned one of the top professional League of Legends teams in North America, Renegades, in one of the harshest punishments ever levied on an esports team. The move potentially cost the team and its two leaders, Christopher "MonteCristo" Mykles and Chris Badawi, millions of dollars of future revenue and sponsorship opportunities.

      This subject further received extensive coverage in this Daily Dot article of which he is the main focus
    • Lingle, Samuel (2016-07-29). "Renegades' MonteCristo responds to Riot ruling". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2016-08-03.

      The largest disciplinary action in esports history forced Renegades to sell its League of Legends franchise earlier this year, and nearly three months later the aggrieved parties are telling their side of the story. Renegades was forced to sell its position in the LCS on May 8 after Riot Games claimed that the team’s new owner, Christopher “MonteCristo” Mykles, had an under-the-table deal to give former owner Chris Badawi, who was permanently banned from owning an LCS team a year prior, a stake in the team if his indefinite ban was lifted. Riot also alleged the team created an “unsafe environment” for players and that the team “deliberately misled” Riot about a corporate relationship with Challenger side Team Dragon Knights (TDK) pertaining to a player trade the teams made late in the Spring season.

Additional sources include Yahoo eSports, Breitbart News, and ESPN. Espn does not cover run of the mill players, there is a prejudice against the subject. Editors should reevaluate the scope of eSports. This is certainly not a niche community anymore and hasn't been for a long time. Valoem talk contrib 18:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I want to point out an anomalous situation that may have directly influenced the afd. On May 16, user:Wlo1234 and user:Wikipedia masterr (creator of Christopher Mykkles) were banned indefinitely, with the former being confirmed a sock of the latter. Earlier, @ Clubjustin: (who indicates that he is now inactive), had tagged several articles created by the user for G4 speedy deletion, even commenting on one of them "Since when are LOL players notable? in that case we should make one for b4nny. ( Tf2 pro player)". If this isn't indicative of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, I don't know what is. Later, the person is revealed to have abused sockpuppet accounts, ClubJustin seizes the opportunity to delete this page and several others as well that he wasn't able to before, and presumably voting solely on the basis of its association with sockpuppetry and without even considering the sources. Furthermore, it should be noted that he also voted only after user:JDDJS had pointed this out in a comment. If not for being created by a sock, the first Afd probably would've resulted in no concensus. I'm making some presumptions here, but perhaps ClubJustin wants to explain his actions more clearly here.
  • The concensus themselves are not as unamimous as some editors here are making them seem. The first afd had four delete votes to one keep, now the sockpuppet user Wikipedia masterr made a statement for the articles inclusion, but did not explicitly say "keep". I believe this was just due to lack of experience with the system and that he would have fully intended to do so. Interestingly, user:Czar also makes a similar non-voting statement, but in the other direction, I will assume that with his years on WP that this is what he actually intended. Thus the first Afd can be read as actually 2 keeps to 4, hardly unanimous. The second Afd has an additional keep vote. With the two Afds combined, there might be said to be 3 keeps to 8 deletes, and if we were to strike the inadvertently canvassed votes we may even find that this is 3 keeps to 5 deletes. Bottom line is, there might have been a concensus to delete both times, but it wasn't as clear as its being made out to be.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse and close - Consensus at both AFDs were to delete, To a point I think the 2nd AFD was closed a tad early however leaving it open would only of gotten more delete !votes anyway, Personally I think this (and the draft) ought to be deleted and everyone just focus on improving the project instead of rebringing everyone to DRV over and over again and arguing it all to death. – Davey2010 Talk 22:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • It would seem to meet WP:N (multiple reliable sources covering the topic in depth) and we've got two new sources in the last two weeks which is typically plenty of reason to relist at AfD, Is there a reason DRV should be making the call about the new sources rather than AfD? That's not unheard of, but it is unusual. Hobit ( talk) 02:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The field of eSports is patently a minefield which, despite my best efforts, doesn't seem to be close to being solved. Everything that goes to AFD winds up being a no consensus or a contentious deletion that ends up being brought to deletion review. I see no reason that this should be overturned and I would suggest that, if these topics keep coming to DRV, my attempts to establish guidelines for inclusion for these topics might actually be worth a wider look, as right now it's a free-for-all. KaisaL ( talk) 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Those endorse should include a reason why these sources provided do not pass WP:GNG. The sources provided suggest allow recreation as a viable close. These sources also nullify prior AfD discussions. Valoem talk contrib 05:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
No, that's how AFD works. This isn't "AFD 2". Its to comment on whether or not the prior closes were legit or not. There was a clear consensus at AFD, and it was rejected three times in a row, mere days ago, at AFC. That's a pretty strong cosensus against this article's status in the mainspace. Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes actually it is see WP:DRVPURPOSE, we can either question the close or determine whether or not recreation is allowed. Sources have been presented what are the issues with the sources? Valoem talk contrib 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Any of the new sources were added to the drafts that were rejected at AFC as recently as August 2nd though. Are there any new sources as of these last 2 days? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Sergecross73:, that is the point exactly, there does not need to be new sources when the current sources already pass GNG. I think we can all agree this passes. Review the sources I listed. They have labeled him having a "multi-million dollar" influence on the LoL community and is the leader of one of the largest League teams. Applying common sense suggests meeting GNG is unquestionable. If you have issues with the sources discussed please compare them to a player you consider notable, show me what kind of sources you are looking for if repeated coverage on ESPN does not suffice. As of right now, every endorse is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Valoem talk contrib 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Citing a clear consensus at AFD and 3 separate AFC reviews is about as far away from IDONTLIKEIT as it gets. You're free to have and defend your own opinions on this, but please don't do such a terrible job at summarizing others. I really don't see how you could propose such a irreconcilable conclusion to other people's stances like that unless you were literally disregarding everything they said in lieu of your own bad faith assumptions on them. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Surprised to see an administrator say this. Wikipedia is based on arguments focusing on policy. Consensus is determined by arguments not voting. If 50 editors say Delete, non-notable and one editor say Keep notable and provides multiple reliable independent sources the correct close is Keep (see Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE). Therefore if you think the sources are insufficient you must prove they are not reliable or independent. Hard to do given the sources I provided. And yes to say he is non-notable when he is clearly, is bad faith. Valoem talk contrib 15:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
You're missing the point of what I was saying. Again, you're free to say "The consensus was read wrong at AFD" if that's how you feel. But you literally cannot make the additional connection that the editors who disagree with you are using IDONTLIKEIT as their stance. They're objectively not using that as their reason. Pointing out three consecutive rejections at AFC is in no way arguing in favor of IDONTLIKEIT. There is literally no way to draw that connection without projecting your own ideas into the mindset of others. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I can when they accuse me of being disruptive or bad faith as you did. Read again how you came off when you this isn't DRVPURPOSE and later said "lieu of your own bad faith assumptions". I said nothing about bad faith merely that based on the sources and the article state, it is an acceptable start class article. This is DRVPURPOSE as an act of good faith why don't you review the sources instead of previous discussion. I am using this DRV to allow recreation not overturn. Valoem talk contrib 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make any sense - you started citing IDONTLIKEIT before I accused you of bad faith assumptions. Re-read our conversation. The reason I mentioned bad faith assumptions was actually in response to your first mentioning of IDONTLIKEIT. And even disregarding the chronological impossibility of your scenario, assuming bad faith on you still wouldn't be a good reason for citing IDONTLIKEIT. Have you read that essay? Its !voting on deletion or keeping an article based on someone's liking or not liking of the subject of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
As far as the number of editors who have either rejected this article in Afd or Afc goes, you are completely correct to say there is concensus for deletion. However, what we are trying to say is that concensus does not come from numbers alone, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but rather, the strength and validity of the arguments. Except for RoySmith, all you have yet to advance a legitimate argument about why this article should not be in mainspace, other than just pointing towards previous rejections and deletion discussions.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 16:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If this is endorsed, we'll probably be back here in a week anyway if previous behaviour is any guide. Reyk YO! 14:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Deletion per Roy Smith. He already explained why the sources are not valid, so there is no reason for other editors to list them again. JDDJS ( talk) 21:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Let's just for a minute that Roy is correct in saying that PC Gamer, The Daily Dot, and the ESPN article by Jacob Wolf are all unreliable. This still leaves Polygon, SB Nation (Rift Herald), Yahoo, and other ESPN articles are valid sources that prove this articles notability.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn or relist at AFD taking into account new sources. Anyone seriously arguing PC Gamer is not a reliable source on gaming clearly has a flawed understanding of what reliable sources are. I would also point out that AFC is not a mandatory process and can be ignored completely. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 09:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that they're not a WP:RS, in the sense that we can't trust that what they print is true. What I'm arguing is that they are a niche publication, with a very narrow focus, and as such, they are not a good indicator of the notability of a topic. My earlier comment on this topic went off on a bit of a tangent, I've struck that part. The narrower the scope of a publication (be that geography, or subject matter), the less significance we should confer on their publishing something. PCGamer is clearly a publication with a very narrow scope. They are likely to publish something on pretty much anything that happens in the gaming world. That doesn't make it notable in my book. A media outlet which focuses on sports in general (say, ESPN, or Sports Illustrated), is more selective in what they publish, so I afford greater weight to them as a source when it comes to judging notability. And, a general-interest outlet with global scope (say, The New York Times, or the BBC), by nature of their broader scope, will be even more selective. So, I give them even more weight. In this particular case, the sources are mostly (yes, I know, not exclusively) very narrow-focused outlets, and not ones that I would weigh very highly when it comes to judging notability. And, yes, it's a judgement call. There's no fixed list of things, from which if you can check off enough boxes, the notability indicator lights up. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Scope of coverage and reliability are unrelated. Expert sources are certainly reliable and independent, suggesting a source focusing within a field as unreliable is the same as saying The New England Journal of Medicine is unreliable because they only publish topics notable in the field of medicine. PCGamer is an expert in the field of gaming and computer software, the publication is subject to editorial review as are all reliable sources. This source certainly qualifies. Regardless, there are still ESPN and Yahoo sources. Sources describe the subject as influencing "millions of dollars of future revenue and sponsorship opportunities" and "team owner" of the leading eSports team, Renegades. The team was subjected to "the largest disciplinary action in esports history", this is all highly indicative of notability. Sergecross73 can you clarify your objection to the sources? Valoem talk contrib 07:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
That is possibly the *stupidest* argument I have ever seen at AFD. 'Gaming' is not a 'niche' subject any more than 'sport' is. If you want to exclude reliable sources because they cover a specific subject, then literally every MEDRS compliant source would need to be excluded (an area which favors subject specific over general coverage - see how your NYT fares against a MEDRS source then), all the gay publications that cover the LGBT area and so on. We are not talking 'Paperclips Monthly' here. Its one of the oldest and independant gaming magazines still in print. You might as well exclude EDGE as well. I am starting to think this really is a case of 'IDONTLIKEIT'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation/ eventually relist at a new AfD. OK, it was already deleted three times, and I can understand some editors are becoming increasely annoyed by this topic resurfacing again and again, but AfDs are not the terminus and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Enough RS which were not analyzed in previous AfD discussions have been provided. As long as most of them are reliable and significant, the proper place to discuss them is a new AfD, and there is no reason to prevent the recreation of the article with a different/improved sourcing. Cavarrone 06:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Consensus can change; but editors are not normally permitted to keep asking the same question again and again until they get the answer they want. This doesn't read like a consensus to overturn; and a reasonable period of time should be allowed to pass before the next DRV or AfD request.— S Marshall T/ C 18:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Even though there are two sources (both fully on the topic of the article, both in RSes) since the last AfD? It's not normally time that matters here but sources. Hobit ( talk) 23:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Ugh. I know what you mean, and this is not a simple decision. On the one hand, Wikipedians should be responsive to new sources. But on the other hand, our discussion processes have to have an end: there must be some way to reach a reasonably stable conclusion.

        In this particular case I weigh the second limb heavier than the first. There have been so many discussions, in such quick succession, that I'm leery of another. My thinking is that if a fresh source were always and automatically a ticket to a new AfD, then what we would actually be doing is creating an incentive to add new sources to an article at the rate of one or two at a time; because that lets you repeat the discussion until it works out in your favour. (Prisencolin is an established editor with a history of following the processes quite scrupulously in this matter. I'm sure that he's not drip-feeding sources in this way, and I'm sure the idea hasn't even occurred to him! But DRV values consistent decisions and what we do for Prisencolin we would likely be asked to do for others.)— S Marshall T/ C 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply

        • It's not just the new sources that exist now. We're also arguing that the first AfD shouldn't have been a delete at all.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 20:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I'm starting to think I'm missing something. I saw this AfD where the result was pretty clearly delete. It was then moved back into mainspace and this AfD was speedly/IAR closed. Was there a DRV or some other AfDs? If not, we've only really had one AfD that ran to completion. If that's right, this DRV doesn't seem overly problematic, especially if there are new good sources (all in the last 2 weeks in fact, so no drip-feeding). I'll admit I don't give the AfC stuff any weight and maybe that's the issue people are seeing? Am I missing something here? Hobit ( talk) 21:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Oh. Maybe I'm missing something. What's wrong with AfC? Why does it get no weight?— S Marshall T/ C 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • It's generally one person making a call. And in my limited experience there are some very new editors there and a strong desire not to override AfD results (which is reasonable IMO). Finally, it's an optional process that's not really intended to hold any weight--it's more advice as far as I can tell. Useful, but not relevant to deletion policy IMO. At least I don't think something passing AfC would mean it can't be sent to AfD. Hobit ( talk) 00:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
              • It is also weirdly counter to how (in my experience) AFC works out, usually articles with far less reliable/GNG-compatible sources make it through AFC, so in this case it seems odd it did not. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
                • On the one hand, I wouldn't describe Chris Troutman or Bradv as "very new editors". I think they're experienced and credible content editors who're well-qualified to operate the AfC process. You're right to say that it's an optional process unless the title's been salted, but the same is true of DRV, isn't it? But on the other hand, I take your point that it is one person making the call and that therefore DRV could legitimately overrule AfC in a matter like this. You've got to weigh an AfC decline like one !vote at an AfD, rather than like a failed AfD. But on the gripping hand, that was quite a few AfC declines in quick succession. Hmmmm.— S Marshall T/ C 07:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
                  • From reading the decline templates on the draft I would say they are competant enough to operate the process, I wouldnt say they are applying the GNG particularly well. As there are multiple independant reliable sources on the draft, to decline it explicitly for lacking those indicates they believe the sources used are either not independant or not reliable. Perhaps they could be persuaded to give further reasoning. How PCGamer, Polygon, ESPN and the DailyDot are neither independant or not reliable I have no clue. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
                      • They probably also rejected the draft as an affirmation of the previous Afd semi-concensus, which only happened a week or so before. From this perspective I can understand why they did this, but it would've been nice that they'd indicated this more clearly.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 07:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • The second delete vote cited "only mentioned in passing" as the reason for deletion. Now, at least in light of recently published sources this would be invalid, however even with sources published as of May 14, but not in the article at the time, it should've passed GNG. No one seemed to comment on my unintentional canvassing suspicions for the third voter, but I will repeat my observation that this may have been the case. Also, the voter offers no reason for deletion other than a WP:VAGUEWAVE of "fails W:P:GNG". As for the second AFD, in retrospect I think it was actually a bad idea on my part to request an early close, and that having this DRV close as "list to afd" would rectify this. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 21:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC) reply
            • OK, I see good points on both sides here. No word in bold from me; I'll be over there trying to extract the fence post from my buttocks.— S Marshall T/ C 17:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Allow move to mainspace (I !voted delete at "afd2"). The current draft looks perfectly OK to me GNG-wise. Even from my geriatric perspective, the concerns above about "niche" look pretty out of touch to me. I'd rather be worn out with repeated requests for recreation than for deletion. Thincat ( talk) 22:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Decline recreation. This topic has been found not notable at AfD, and the request does not identify on account of which new information, not available at the time of the AfD, this determination should be reconsidered. So this does just look like forum-shopping.  Sandstein  16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but others (me for example) have identified material that wasn't available at the time of the AfD this Daily Dot article is solely about the subject and written in the last two weeks. This PCgamer article was also written in the last two weeks. Those two articles, by themselves, have a reasonable claim of meeting WP:N. That the DRV nomination statement didn't make that as clear as it should isn't a reason to not restore the article and send it to AfD (where all the sources can be discussed as a group). Also, the draft article is pretty clearly meeting WP:N, which the nomination statement did note. Hobit ( talk) 19:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC) reply
All sources have been present please read the discussion. These sources have not been analyzed those favoring declining recreation, so far analysis of sources favors inclusion and passes our GN guidelines. Valoem talk contrib 06:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • All right, I'm neutral. It looks as though there are new sources, but I can't bring myself to care enough about this silly topic (by which I mean professional sports in general, not only this variant) to read them and to determine their significance.  Sandstein  07:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse New sources do not represent a significant change in notability with which to overturn previous decisions (Daily Dot? come on.) DRV should be used when there is a problem with the previous close or when significant new notability is present, backed as always by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It's not a place to reargue the same crap over and over in hopes of getting it through somehow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
    • PC Gamer has long been considered a reliable source and is one of the two new sources. And even if you don't like the Daily Dot as the outher source, the RS notice board has accepted it. ( [5]). So we've got one source that is certainly reliable and one that WP:RSN has accepted as reliable. Even with just the PCGamer one, that's enough for a relist, and the two may well be enough to meet WP:N without the older sources. And again, those two are just from the last two weeks! Hobit ( talk) 21:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC) reply
      • So, if I understand you right, it's OK to continually rehash the fate of this article, ad infinitum, but five years ago, four people spent three days discussing a source, and their opinion is now inviolable gospel for all time? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Actually yes. You need to demonstrate that a source is not reliable when consensus has already decided it is. The usual place for this is opened a discussion at the RS noticeboard to see if consensus has changed. As you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate the new sources are not reliable, there is not much more to say. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
          • I'd phrase it a bit differently. None of our processes are inviolable--there is generally a clear way to get something reconsidered. For deletion, you go to DRV. For a judgement on a reliable source, you go back to RSN. The discussion at RSN about the Daily Dot wasn't great, so I've no problem with saying that a new discussion might lead to a different outcome. But I don't think it reasonable to expect a claim that it's not reliable to hold much water without opening up a discussion at RSN and seeing how that fares. Hobit ( talk) 07:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation. New sources, including ESPN and PC Gamer, which is very much a RS, brought up since the last AfD, which wasn't a full one anyway, should be enough to allow recreation, or at the very least, a relist with a clean AfD. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 08:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I argued for restoration above, but I am saddened by the process-focus expressed by many otherwise good, content-focused editors above. I encourage the closing admin to disregard all the arguments, no matter which way they lean, regarding the process of deciding whether this content has sufficient independent reliable sourcing to merit and article, and instead evaluate only the arguments made for or against the existence of sufficient sourcing to merit a Wikipedia article. Really, people, this is not rocket science: our rules do not exist in a vacuum nor for their own sake, they exist to help us make the most awesome encyclopedia around. Jclemens ( talk) 17:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Non-partisan comment from DRV1 & AFD2 closer - I can see we mostly all agree on these few points: the first AFD correctly concluded with deletion, and the first DRV correctly ended with consensus to userfy. So far so good. Prisencolin then improved it with new sources, moved it back to Draftspace and submitted it. Then it was declined at AfC, and a few hours later, approved at AfC with minor changes since the decline and moved to mainspace, where it was AfD'ed again. Prisencolin suggested moving it back to draftspace saying he wasn't done improving it to meet the concerns of the first AfC decline, and there seemed to be general agreement (included from Prisencolin) that the second AfC review was approved without enough regard for the concerns of AFD1 nor the first AfC decline. I thus thought the best course of action was to move it back to draftspace where it should have remained since DRV1, and FPP the mainspace title to avoid another AfC reviewer approving it "too hastily" without reviewing all the voiced concerns. Then the article was repeatedly declined at AfC based on the AFD1/AFD2 history, and not based on its merits, which do not seem to have been properly evaluted after Prisencolin's work on the draft. And seeing from the many voices here that opine that the new sources are sufficient to pass GNG (despite opposition), it seems plausible that it might be ready for mainspace; at the very least, it is worthy of serious discussion. Whether it ends up being recreated and AFD3'ed immediately with a note to judge the article and not its history or whether this DRV2 turns out to end up with sufficient consensus to approve the AfC draft outright, it's all the same to me. I won't specifically comment on the merits of whether I think it is ready for mainspace or not because I see all the regular DRV closers have commented and have a feeling I might be asked to close this DRV2 (unless y'all think my previous closures make me WP:INVOLVED, but I personally don't consider myself involved editorially). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 22:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_August_2&oldid=1136100043"