Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FREAKAZOiD

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 July 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 July 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FREAKAZOiD[edit]

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

Professional Counter-Strike player who made some minor news due to an in-game incident, and was eventually dropped from his team after "disappointing performances". Google hits for 'Freakazoid Counter-Strike' include basically these two news items - fails to establish notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failing WP:GNG and WP:1E. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mention at Cloud9_(esports)#Counter-Strike as he is most prominent for this incident, which is covered there. All other hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search are passing mentions—nothing in depth on his play. czar 23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I can see that, but I certainly don't think he's the primary topic for Freakazoid, unless you want to literally use his goofy capitalization scheme currently used in the article as the redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would normalize the capitalization before redirecting its contents, yes. Note to closer: The Daily Dot links are down right now, otherwise I'd comment on them. When I searched the same website earlier, I did not find enough coverage apart from C9 to warrant a separate article. I'm also not confident about the reliability of sites like TheScore and PVP. czar 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if there's eventually a consensus to redirect this page, we may as well just delete it instead, since it would be an WP:XY that could equally point to Cloud9 or Echo Fox. (this is not a vote, just to be clear)--Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect later if wished, there's still nothing actually convincing of both a current and future substantially convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess this is just a matter of principle, but I believe the sources that cover this subject are enough to meet WP:GNG. It's also not a WP:1E because there is notability outside of the bullying incident, as the sources suggest.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are there that covered him in significant detail about things not related to his incident of being caught bullying someone else? All the significant coverage seems to be about that than anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are stories about him being dropped from C9 (unrelated to bullying incident), being picked up by Splyce and Echo Fox and a couple of interviews from reliable sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral. I did some searching (admittedly, not a huge amount). What I'm seeing is mostly hits for Freakazoid!. Those that look like they are for the subject of this article all totally unsuitable as sources; a gaming wiki, and things like twitter and youtube. The onus is on Prisencolin to present specific sources and explain why they are sufficient, not just assert that they exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Daily Dot, ESPN, Yahoo, and Breitbart News are a reliable sources. PVP Live should be, but I suppose I'll need to double check. There have been discussions about TheScore eSports and it may or may not be a reliable source.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the quick reply. I'll go along with the Breitbart article; it seems to be a reasonable publication (not NY Times quality, but certainly having some editorial control) and the article cited is clearly more than a passing mention. So, that's one source. I'm not finding the Daily Dot citation, however, can you supply a direct URL? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are several articles [1] [2] [3] and more from google search--Prisencolin (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have to admit, the Daily Dot sources you present do seem to meet the letter of our requirements for WP:RS (the first one has WP:1E issues, but the others don't). Still, I'm having a hard time with this. One thought is that I just can't see that covering a professional gamer as a legitimate encyclopedia topic (although, I freely admit that's already a lost cause). Another thought is that I'm having trouble with a source which describes itself as The ultimate destination for original reporting on Internet culture and life online. A big part of what's wrong with Wikipedia is that it's (way) too much focused on pop culture, current events, and things which are easily researchable on-line. In some senses, we've become a blog dressed up in encyclopedia drag, and using sources like The Daily Dot just reinforces that. So, I'm going to remain neutral on this (call it IAR Neutral if you must). But, thank you Prisencolin for responding to my queries. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles shown by Prisencolin seem enough for this to pass the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The prospect of discussing notability guidelines for eSports subjects like this has recently been raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports, where contributors here may wish to add their thoughts. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. eSports is an area we seriously need to look into (see my comment above). An issue we have on some online issues is that we look at source names and use them as a rationale to keep, rather than source contents. I fail to see how any of the coverage is significant beyond the eSports community, and that is the important thing. KaisaL (talk) 20:22, 3 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.