Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ERa Eternity

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. No prejudice in an independent editor with no COI writing a new article from scratch. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ERa Eternity

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

Non-notable advert by a group member.

The article was previously deleted A7 as a puff piece by Willhire a WP:SPA, WP:COI editor ("Willhire - William Owens - Chief Human Resources Officer") with some edits by Jdaiey, ("JDaley - Jordan Daley - Chief Operating Officer").

It was refunded to Draft at the request of Prisencolin who hasn't edited the article at all. A couple of IPs have edited with minor improvements. Willhire then moved it back to mainspace. It's worth noting Willhire's own assessment, "I have made zero valid contributions. Honestly don't know why this account still exists." Cabayi (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revise This article appears to have COI violations, but the idea of the article seems fine since teams like Evil Geniuses have a page. It needs to be heavily edited to remove the self-promotion and trival details. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Revise The article was made with a conflict of interest, but I tried to write it in a way where it did not seem biased. The article is fortunately notable with reliable coverage sources from Dexerto, DOTeSports, WWG, and etc. I believe with heavy editing it will be a more valid article. The article fits along the lines of pages FaZe Clan, Fnatic, Team EnVyUs, and etc.. Keep in mind I will NOT be contributing towards this page anymore due to me not wanting it to be disbanded and have others contribute with good faith unless under the circumstances of having to fix due to vandalism or noticeable false errors. Just for clearance, I do NOT have any relation with User:Prisencolin, I believe he is going to be one of the editors who will edit in good faith whom does not have a conflicting interest. Also, what is on my user page should not pertain to what is a notable article and the use of it in your guide to deletion is not well done in my opinion. --User:Willhire (talk) 1:35 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revise per above. I believe there are reliable sources that cover this subject and has potential to be something beyond an advertisement.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article lacks WP:RS and the WP:VGRS custom search engine gets us no further regarding meeting the criteria established in WP:GNG. Moving it to draft space is not tenable and would see it languish as it would not, for the foreseeable future, be able to be improved to the level necessary for moving into the article space. This is a straight delete. --Izno (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete per Izno, this does not meet GNG and should not be draftspaced (again). I'm hoping the closer will attribute appropriate weight to the arguments presented by Prisencolin (without veering into WP:NPA, Prisencolin has a reputation as an eSports inclusionist activist regardless of notability or content) and by Willhire, senior management of the article subject and strongest possible COI. Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izno, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#4 Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content, and these issues should be solved in draft before putting in articlespace per WP:NOBOGOF. Widefox; talk 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the several arguments which are WP:OTHERSTUFF are to be avoided, so those !votes need weighing appropriately. Widefox; talk 13:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. The article is largely sourced to social media and Youtube, and nothing presented here at this AFD has verified that anything better exists. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable references, so it fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and WP:NOBOGOF. As an orthogonal issue, this was requested to be undeleted, but then never worked on. The goal of WP:REFUND is so the content can be improved upon. If you're not going to improve it, don't ask for it to be undeleted; you're just wasting everybody's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. I think there are sufficient sources existing to satisfy GNG, for when the article is re-written. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (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.