Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team zEx (2nd nomination)

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 No consensus (keep). Keilana 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team zEx[edit]

Although normally I'd tag things like this A7 without hesitation, I'm not so sure about this one so bringing it over here for a full discussion, as I don't think we really have a clear policy on this sort of thing. Is this deletable as a article on a non-notable club with no raliable sources, or does the "competition at the highest level" notability criteria apply to virtual as well as real sports? I really can't make my mind up on this one, so this is a true procedural nomination and I abstain from voting either way. Note that although this has already been deleted, the deleted version is different (and the first AfD looks to me more like a "no consensus" than a "delete", anyway) so bringing it over for a fresh discussion. — iridescent 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I would have tagged this as a G6, but since you want to talk about it again, I'll bite. This article fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:WEB, and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending reliable sources. IMHO, "electronic" sports can be as skilful and rigorous as chess or snooker, so top players/teams/tournaments are notable. As for sources, I already found this about the retirement of the team, and presumably if they did win or come close runners up in any of the tournaments, it should be verifiable. Well written otherwise so give it a week or two for sources to appear. Moyabrit (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This team was pretty big, I remember seeing coverage of them on tourney websites back in the day, which I consider to be the electronic equivalent of traditional sports coverage. I can probably dig up coverage of their matches or an interview, if I look hard enough. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References (courtsey of csnation.net and gotfrag.net: Interview with Bigwie, one of their members at the time. Some controversy about a match they played when they had an unfair/deliberate disadvantage, looks like there was some official word from CAL about this and a rematch. Concerns that zEx wouldn't be able to make it to the CPL. Article about the teams retirement. Article about a roster change and team refocus. Interview with the team. I think these are sufficient to demonstrate notability within professional esports. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Convinced of notability by the above sources. No bias against "cyberathletes". User:Krator (t c) 13:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's references are all trivial; while the ones provided above by NickPenguin are better, they still don't amount to much more than blog postings. Sure, there's mention of the subject, but they don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability, and since the article itself mentions that this group no longer exists, it's unlikely that they'll be gaining in importance in the future. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would contend that the two sites I drew those articles from (csnation.net and gotfrag.net) are more than just blogs. I consider these to be reliable and longstanding (six or seven years at least) sources within the community, and over the years they have given significant coverage Counter-Strike and the involvement/development of CS and professional esports. Although I do admit this may not be widely known, especially if you don't find competitive gaming particularly interesting. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have to say I didn't expect to say so, but find myself convinced by NickPenguin's sources. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (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.