Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bu Yanjun

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 delete. Salted due to offsite declaration to recreate. Note to other admins: keep an eye out for variant spellings. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yanjun[edit]

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

Article on a "pro-gamer" with but one source and no real lasting claim to notability - perhaps I'm misreading, however, so opinion is welcomed. — Joseph Fox 12:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This gamer is really a recognized one idolized by gamers all over the world. I will try to add more sources. Redefining history (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of the World DotA Championships should be in-line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and i would like to request this article to stay. Although i acknowledge that much are needed to be improved in the article. Redefining history (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Only one of the "references" given actually mentions him, and that is insubstantial coverage on a non-reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Joseph Fox and JamesBWatson. Insufficient sources. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly-sourced. Also seems to not be written as per WP:NPOV, for two reasons: was created with a slew of other "pro DOTA players BLPs" (denoting the author is likely a big fan of the subject(s), lessening the likeliness of a "disinterested tone"), as well as choice of words ("Bu 'YaphetS' Yanjun is a retired Chinese professional DotA player worshiped by many for his great reflexes in game."). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvidrim (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT :　Added more sources, more information and changed the tone of the article. Hope it gets to be kept :D Redefining history (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources look reliable, they're mostly seemingly from fansites or youtube. Fails to establish notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CHECK PROPERLY. The sites are official gaming media sites (mymym.com, gosugamers.net, sgamer.com, 178.com), and baidu baike. how are they fansites? Redefining history (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean like a fansite for the particular person, I meant like a fansite that documents competitive video gaming or whatevers going on here. These are small, obscure websites that still don't really qualify as a reliable sources. If Gamespot or IGN or someone well known was providing coverage, then that would be a different story. But I'm not sure "mymymy.com" is comparable to such a source... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i put in reliable sources and etc. etc. what else is still lacking in the article? i could further improve it to meet the wikipedia criteria. Redefining history (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just asking here : Jang Jae Ho is allowed to stand with practically the same sources (mymym.com , gosugamers.net) how is this article not allowed to stand? Redefining history (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument. Just because one article exists doesn't mean another one should automatically. Quite the opposite, if that article is indeed comparable to this one, it probably means that one is in danger of being deleted as well... Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to familiarize yourself with this guideline. Salvidrim (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about notability brought up to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_gaming_media_partners Redefining history (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) discussion on WP:BIO brought up on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Professional_eSports Redefining history (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to the first, the second doesn't need much more than what's said already -- needs to pass WP:GNG. Salvidrim (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT : in progress of replacing sources such as mymym.com and gosugamers.net with INDEPENDENT and DISINTERESTED sources, such as chinese gaming media sites which reports on gaming in general (pchome.net counts as one rite?). Redefining history (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pchome.net looks possible at first sight, would need some experienced source-checkers to analyze it a bit more. It has no outright apparent bias or anything of the sort, which is already something Salvidrim (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also brought up the discussion here : Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_professional_eSports_players. I wish to settle this once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 03:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability outside of the world of professional gaming. At this point in time simply being a gamer and having coverage on gaming sites is not enough. Would need to see some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i realized, pchome.net IS NOT A GAMING SITE, and instead is a digital technology lifestyle website. Is that enough? Redefining history (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule it should not be this hard to establish notability. So no to me it's not enough. The simple fact that you have have to search and search for sources if anything shows a lack of notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you search "PIS DOTA" or "YAPHETS DOTA" on google, most of the sources will be from gosugamers and mymym (or even sgamer), but since it is argued that these are unreliable sources, i have to search for sources that are neutral, thats why its so hard to establish this notability. Redefining history (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is hard to establish notability because they are not notable. If someone is notable it is not hard to establish and you do not need to dig for sources. Ridernyc (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, im trying to claim to wikipedia that gosugamers and mymym are reliable sources. Redefining history (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you were already told that they are not. How many different places are you going to go to try to bend the rules to allow these articles. You got a no at Reliable Sources, you got a no at notability(people), you got a no at notability(athletes), am I missing any? Even though you were told WP:Athlete has nothing to do with these players you still have tried to use it in multiple AFD's. Either provide sources or have the articles userfied and try to to change consensus on notability for gamers. Stop trying to find loopholes. Ridernyc (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to find loopholes, instead, i am trying a way to change people's opinion on esports based on what have already been done for esports. Redefining history (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note These debates are being discussed off wiki here [1] I now know why so many SPA's have been active on these pages. Ridernyc (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, I believe admins can block the creation of a page and/or prevent certain users from creating articles. Salvidrim (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why I put in this note for the closing admin's attention. --Crusio (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have been one of the biggest proponents for the development of high quality DotA-related articles, such as Defense of the Ancients and Dota 2, (hell, I created the latter), we cannot have these articles about individual players. As a team, for a high-priced, well-sponsored, well-sourced organization, such as SK Gaming, then sure, but that even doesn't concentrate upon individual players. Be warned, drawing in anonymous and new users for an argument is against Wikipedia's policies and it may produce negative consequences if you continue this. DarthBotto_talk•cont 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment one of the above delete arguments: "no notability outside of the world of professional gaming." is actually an argument for keep. If the person is notable in the world of professional gaming, as shown by sources appropriate to that field, then they are notable. Wrestlers are notable in the world or wrestling, biologists in biology, legislators in politics. The equiavlent of notable to everybody is fame. Notability is much less than that. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that we should an article on X who participates in Y just because X has "no notability outside the world of Y" is not a keep argument, as it all depends on actually what "Y" is. If Y is a broadly covered subject by many reliable sources, then yes, that's a fair assumption. If Y is a very narrow field with few or no reliable sources, that argument breaks down. That's the issue with professional gaming: it is a field that exists, but the sources that cover it to any degree are not reliable, and the activities of professional gaming aren't really picked up by the general video game area. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was about to write a similar argument, but I think you probably covered better than I would have... Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I continue to disagree. Everything is notable or not within its subject field. Masem, you're saying all the available sources are not reliable, which is a reasonable argument (that i cannot judge). That the sources are limited to the field is not a reasonable argument. Most good sources are limited to the field they cover. When we say, for example, we prefer academic journal articles for scientific subjects, these are almost always limited to their specific field, which is often quite narrow, The narrowness of the field or the number of the journals is irrelevant; if it has one or two journals which are reliable sources, they're reliable sources. If it has none, that's a problem. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that not only are they limited to the field, they are limited to a very small subset of the field. So far no one has shown any reliable independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Using the example given, a "legislator being notable in politics" would be akin to a pro gamer being notable throughout the "gaming" world. This article, while no doubt notable within its own sub-community of a specific set of 3-4 games, would be akin to a legislator being notable only amongst the citizens of his borough in his city, and not in politics at large. Salvidrim (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The 3-4 games are all we have for e-sports ... Redefining history (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That is 100% false. Ridernyc (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        redefining history edited this article yesterday [2] I'm not going to count but you can see there is clearly way more then 3-4 games listed. How he can edit this article yesterday and then make this statement here today is beyond me. Ridernyc (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, there are more than 3-4 games in esports. But the coverage rankings is - 1.Starcraft 2.DotA If he is notable in the dota world, and dota is notable in the esports world, he is notable. Redefining history (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:ITSA. This is the same as a politician notable only in his borough in his city -- even if the borough or city is notable by Wikipedia's standard, the politician is not. Salvidrim (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To DGG: I don't disagree that when you start to get into a narrower field, that the level of what we consider as reliable sources starts to become lower than for broad topics. But there is a minimum requirement for reliable sources that we can't go past, that being evidence of fact checking and editorialship and with sufficient independence. That's the problem here with esports is that as a narrower field of video games, the unique websites covering them fail the basic notability facets and so while the field and some of the leagues are covered in normally reliable VG sources, the individual players rarely get that. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm really not seeing the significant coverage in reliable third party sources that make me feel that it should be kept. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (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.