Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECompete-Online

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ECompete-Online[edit]

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

Article about a gaming website which provides no evidence of notability. The references are all either forums or the site itself. Very few relevant ghits - see here. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep failing to recognize the points I make in the article's talk page. I will paste them here: Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't consider a GotFrag interview to be a reliable source? GotFrag is one of the most (if not THE ONLY) reputable eSports news site in North America. Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'd like to remind you that TWL's article which has been around since 2006 also only cite's itself and then one GotFrag article. I don't say this so you go ahead and propose for that to be deleted as well, but to instead show that for North American eSports, GotFrag is one of the most reliable sources you can get. Rafael 23:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this or this count as a notable reference? Those are two matches for the league that the broadcasting companies kept online Rafael 23:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. While the line is often blurring between blog sites and mainstream media, the references for this article are not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Ikluft (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CB-keep I already made most of these poitns above but I figured I'd make an official "vote" with the information as it may help: While the article does cite itself multiple times, there it also cites GotFrag which is a reputable eSports news site for North America and thus DOES meet WP:RS. You have to understand that eSports is not a topic that is going to be covered by such news sites as CNN, MSNBC, ESPN or anything that big. Clearly GotFrag is not as big as those but it is the biggest news site for eSports in North America and Wikipedia does consider it notable seeing as it has a [GotFrag|wikipedia page]. Second, using google searches such as "eco league" or "ecompete online" you can stumble upon several other web pages which should prove WP:N namely this and this which are both shoutcasting companies for eSports (again, both of which are known in the eSports world) and then this which is a known server company which partnered with ECO to have coupon codes. Finally, I'd like to make the last point that TWL and CPL both mainly cite themselves. TWL has a reference from GotFrag and a server company whereas CPL only cites itself and then has one other reference from a reputable source. If those meet Wikipedia standards for WP:RS then I don't see why this article does not. Rafael 16:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that (1) most of the claims in the article cannot be verified and (2) there is no reason to believe that the site is in any way significant or notable. TWL, for example, claims 735,000 members which sounds pretty big to me, whereas ECO is less than a year old and is clearly struggling. The references to GotFrag are mostly minor news items about ECO's downtime, etc. GotFrag certainly doesn't seem to meet the WP:RS requirement of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". And the essay here argues that "An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics" - that doesn't sound like GotFrag to me andy (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GotFrag has forums but it also publishes articles. I fully understand where you are coming from by saying that the forums are not a reputable source on GotFrag. However, I really honestly do not see where you are coming from by saying that the article published about ECO is also not reliable. GotFrag is owned by Major League Gaming by the way (not sure if you knew that or not). Again, [here] is the article I am referring to. Moving back to your first point: the article makes very little claims that are not verified. Well, let me rephrase: a lot of the article is about how playing in the league would work. This is referenced by the actual rules...does that not seem logical to you? I understand that it does not help proving WP:N by citing yourself. However, I think WP:RS is validated for those aspects of the article by citing the rules. WP:N should be satisfied via the article and the three links I gave above (which are not yet in the article). So to recap, I feel WP:RS is satisfied by citing the actual league rules which DO back up a lot of the claims made on the article about the league play. And WP:N is satisfied via the GotFrag article, server 'alliance', and multiple shoutcast videos on demand. Rafael 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the information in the article--that it only supports three games, that it has been unstable, that it hopes for later expansion, the straight-forward conclusion would be not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also fails the website notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (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.