Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disguised (esports)

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 keep‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disguised (esports)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Declined twice at AfC, simply moved to mainspace. Tagged for improvement, eventually moved back to draft, and then returned to mainspace by probably COI editor without improvement. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know chief, this team has been mentioned in Sports Illustrated and many, many, many, many times in Dot Esports (SIGCOV example here). Decent mentions in Polygon and PC Gamer as well makes me feel like this is a notable team. It was obviously rejected for a reason, but I can only assume its creator didn't understand how to continue improving it. Regardless, now that it's in mainspace, WP:NEXIST applies, and it's unquestionably notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the organisation has received substantial coverage from independent sources. I have found some and added them to the article. I have also cleaned up some instances of bias I saw throughout. Think the article is fine for mainspace now. If it was still in its original state I would've advocated for it to be returned again to drafts. Jack4576 (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE turns up plenty of the usual independent sources for e-sports coverage (DOT, Dexerto, Polygon). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm, clear significant coverage from outlets considered reliable per WP:VG/RS. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG can be shown based on sources provided and mentioned here. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notability Blitzfan51 the manager 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably leaning towards sending to draftspace. I can definitely see why this was rejected at AFC - it reads more like some notes someone compiled on a notepad more than an article. The sourcing is sorta there (some, like Dexerto, are absolutely not reliable sources) but it's plain to see it's not ready to be published until someone, you know, actually writes an article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying does discourage random editors from happening upon and improving it. I think it should be left there as it is unlikely it will be further improved by the original editor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To each their own, but I can't give my blessing to publishing junk like this. It's simply not ready. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with you that this article's a mess, deletion isn't cleanup. What matters is whether a topic has sufficient evidence of notability, and it's already been proven. Instead of draftifying it, why not just leave a "Sources Exist" and "Cleanup" template to indicate that it can be improved and is notable? Sure, editors may not actively work on the article right now, but eventually a bold editor will take notice and rework the article. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a slam dunk response had I advocated for deletion...but I didn't. I advocated moving it back into the draftspace cleaned up first. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just saying that I don't really see the need to draftify when a simple template to notify editors that it needs cleanup would suffice. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is pretty much a Soft Delete if nobody bothers to improve it before 6 months. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 14 May 2023 (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.