Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luo Feichi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Since no other admin seems willing to close this AfD after nearly a month, it highlights to fact it is impossible to find consensus to delete; I don't like this close, but this has had more than enough time for additional input and has failed to involve enough editors to achieve a consensus for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luo Feichi

[edit]
Luo Feichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL):(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a professional esports player. While there is not really such a thing as a fully professional league as WP:ATHLETE would require, the player has won several fully professional tournaments. However, with e-sports, there is still very little in the way of reporting from traditional reliable sources. I don't think this article is sustainable from the combination of primary sources and less reliable sources currently available. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor of this article. The most important tournament of Dota2 is the The International which prize money for champion now is more than $1,400,000 and previous prize money for champion is more than $1,000,000. The most famous tournament of e-sports is World Cyber Games. He was the champion of these two tournaments and was evaluated the best solo player in 2012 by gosugamer and liquid.net. I offer the office website of these two tournaments as the reliable source. Then for dota, the most important international tournaments are SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and World DotA Championship. He was the champion of SMM Grand National Final DotA Tournament and the runner-up of World DotA Championship. He also got the runner-up of Intel Extreme Masters(I offered the office web page) dota title. I have already offered the office website for these tournaments as the source. I think office website should be the most reliable source. Thank you. Miracle dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I add the source from Good Game, GameDaily and Eurogamer which are considered reliable sources per consensus at WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page.Then use the official website of wcg (World Cyber Games) as the source of achievement at World Cyber Games tournament which should be reliable. Miracle dream (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the significant coverage about Feichi in these sources. Am I overlooking anything? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with you. For example, yes, a reliable Eurogamer source was added, but the source doesn't even mention Luo in it, its just a source about an event he was part of. If it doesn't actually discuss Luo in any capacity, it doesn't work towards the notability of Luo at all. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, will you check the articles which I listed above after decision? All of them don't have the reliable sources and most of sources from these articles just described some events (the player join) not the player but some of them are very famous and notable e-sports players.It seems you should also delete these famous e-sports players based on this rule. I think wiki should improve their coverage or make a new rule to determine whether to keep a e-sports player. If not, I am sure probably 80% or 90% articles about e-sports players should be deleted. Maybe only 1 or 2 article will remain. Another problem why not determine notable of an e-sports player based on their achievements if given the evidence of these achievements from reliable source? Then actually there are some of articles about Luo's biography online but the problem is these articles were from other wiki (For example, some game wiki) or from gosugamer.net and teamliquid.net. It seems other wiki, gosu or liquid may not be acknowledged. Miracle dream (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2014‎ (UTC)
We'll have to go case-by-case. From the top of my hat Tastosis are probably notable, but other than that I wouldn't know. It's also quite possible that some of the teams are notable rather than their individual players. That I can't think of any from the top of my hat doesn't mean there aren't any though. Specifically the Korean e-sports scene is unknown to me - and we all know it's pretty large. There might be coverage there for players that may be harder to find. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but the lack of third party reliable sources in other articles is not a valid reason to keep this article, it would be a reason to delete all of them. That's really the only way to measure notability in the Wikipedia sense. Anything that doesn't meet that, isn't meeting Wikipedia's standards, and should be deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thus,the things I want to say is wiki should create a more sufficient rule for e-sports player. I am not trying to convince you delete the articles I listed.I think should find a new way to determine it. Actually, the list I offered above is just a little part of articles which have this problem. I also check other articles about e-sports player (include Korean e-sports players) but none of them satisfy your requirement.I bet you need to delete the whole Categories of e-sports players. In fact, I hope not to delete any of them. Hence the more important thing is to create a more sufficient coverage or rule.I think current rule is not effective for e-sports.I think achievement should be an important criterion for e-sports. Then I think should consider more source. I check WikiProject Video Games's Source evaluation page, most of the sources in this page just describe the video game not e-sports or e-sports tournaments.I can hardly search an article related e-sports in these sources. However, you don't accept the official website as the sources about a tournaments.WP:VG/RS doesn't consider any Korean sources as the reliable sources even you know e-sports in Korea is pretty large. Hence,there is no sufficient way to find sources about e-sports. At last, I think the result is to delete whole Categories of e-sports players. Miracle dream (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly accept Korean sources - as long as they meet WP:RS. If they also give significant coverage about the player, and they are independent of the player, they prove wikiNotability. If you have such Korean sources for this player but thought you couldn't use them because they are Korean, by all means bring them in. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but any special conditions for notability, for example, WP:NSONGS, is still largely rooted in the GNG. It's the premise of the entire Wikipedia Project, you can't just go and make exceptions for its very foundation. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on this a little, specific notability guidelines generally work in the way that they say if conditions x, y and/or z are met, we have found that in those cases the subject will meet the standard of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and as such can be used as a shot-cut for it. They don't intend to set special terms, just shortcuts to evaluating the main one. I'm happy to explain further if you have questions how that works, but this AfD is not the place for that. Feel free to ask on my talkpage for example. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Korean or Chinese sources are also acceptable.Can you tell me which kind of Chinese or Korean online sources is acceptable. For e-sports players, every articles just use the online sources and it is hard to find other sources. Just give me an example of Chinese online sources so that I can find it.Miracle dream (talk)18:19, 9 January 2014‎
I'm personally not familiar in sources of that language, but this link helps with identifying reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From this page, it seems online sources are not acceptable but for e-sports more than 90% sources are from some websites. I need some information about reliable online sources. Miracle dream (talk)18:19, 9 January 2014‎
The same as for all other sources: they must have editorial oversight with a reputation for fact checking. So no user submitted content like wikis and forums, and no self-published content like blogs. They must also be independent, so no press releases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me whether gosugamers.net is acceptable? Miracle dream (talk)20:44, 9 January 2014
I'm not quite sure there is much editorial control (going by this it seems there isn't much, but quite possibly some), but it certainly is something. If it has an article like this for example on Feichi, that could would definitely help, especially if there are more such articles. Again, they don't have to be written in English, they can be written in Korean. It's a little harder to judge those for non-korean speakers (like myself), but there should be people able to figure things out. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if an article like this,[1] or [2] is acceptable. I also find some articles like this but it's an game wiki.Miracle dream (talk)04:54, 10 January 2014‎
Great work, thanks for finding these. The first two are interviews. Interviews are a primary source (it's the subject talking about himself), but at the same time they are not published by the subject itself. I do believe that this counts towards notability - it is a third party taking note of the subject - but that's not a standard interpretation. The third one is a wiki, which is user-generated content and does not count as a reliable source. If there were sources there, we could have maybe used those, but unfortunately, there aren't. In the light of these newly found sources, and with the knowledge that the e-sports scene is centered around Korea, and this player is Chinese where there also is a significant scene, it seems likely (not demonstrated, but still likely) that there is more material out there in Korean or Chinese language sources that further establishes notability for this player that we just haven't found yet. The current combination of reliable primary sources should be sufficient to source a basic article. With that, I currently turn to weak keep (with no prejudice against re-nominating in a few months time), with the understanding that notability hasn't been demonstrated yet, but is likely to exist, and we probably need more time to either unearth it, or find that there turns out to be no notability after all. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this changes your mind again or not, @Martijn Hoekstra:, but all of the sources seem to come from a "gosugamers", which was recently deemed "not reliable" here, where WikiProject Video Games determine reliability of different sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh snap. I'll have to take a look later. one is gosugamers, and the other is itsgosu btw. Whether that helps or not is another point. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you just keep with tag about notability problem like this article Kyle Miller or keep with tag additional citations like Ronald Kim and Fatal1ty? Or maybe you can tag like Laurens Pluijmaekers.I think should give me online source about e-sports players so that I can easily find something about players. I see the sources wiki offered are all about game video but you know game video is different with electronic sports.I suggest to list a reliable online sources for e-sports not for video game.Miracle dream (talk)19:24, 10 January 2014‎
It wouldn't really conceptually make sense to close this as "Keep" and then tag the article for notability - this is the place where we're supposed to be determining such a thing. We shouldn't keep the article if we can't prove its notability here. As for starting up a page for reliable sources on e-sports, you'd probably want to propose such a thing at WikiProject Video Games, not a deletion discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confused why the articles I listed tag that and what are these tags for. If these tags exits, they should be used for something. There are so many articles tag this. Is it a mistake to tag these labels for these articles? Then can you help me to propose this thing to WikiProject Video Games? I am not a member of this project and I think this will not invite me to join this project. Hence, I think proposed by a member will be more useful. Another reason is I don't know how to organized this proposal. I think you have known my idea in this page so I hope you can help me to organized it and propose to the project. Another question: Are you the administrator to determine whether delete this article? From your replies, it seems you have the final decision right.Miracle dream (talk)20:16, 10 January 2014‎
Can you also offered some online reliable sources about e-sports players so I can edit for this article? Miracle dream。Also, can I use some Chinese article like this as the sources? (talk)20:32, 10 January 2014‎
  • If an article is "tagged for notability", it usually used as a signal that it may not meet Wikipedia's standard for having its own article. A common response to that tag is try to delete it, or prove that it meets the requirements. This is why I say it wouldn't make sense to close this discussion as "Keep" - it would be moving backwards considering its already been nominated for deletion, and so far it hasn't found consensus that it meets the requirements.
  • Yes, Martijn and I are Admin, but in deletions discussions, the final verdict and deletion must be done by an uninvolved Admin - a third party who didn't participate in the discuss, but just review it. Martijn and I lost the ability to delete it ourselves once we joined in on these discussions.
  • Any person at any time can declare themselves "members of a Wikiproject". You can just as easily declare yourself a member and start a discussion on the talk page. While I'm greatly interested in video games, I don't really have any interest in it as a sport, so I wouldn't be the one to go to for this one. I can only help you with understanding what a reliable source is... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then how to post this proposal in video game project? Can I use some Chinese article like this as the sources? Miracle dream (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2014‎
To ask about it, just go to the talk page of the WikiProject, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games) and start up a new discussion. As far as your source, its hard to tell since can't read any of it. It doesn't especially look professional. Can you verify if they have an editorial staff with a history of fact checking? Can you check their credentials? Can you see how it stacks up with the info at WP:IRS? Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been foiled before by sites that look 'like that'. For Western sources I can get a rough first impression of the reliability of the source by the look of the webdesign alone. For non-western sources that can be quite different. I've had things that 'look' like a promising source at first been just blogs, and things that look like they can't be much be prestigious national newspapers. It's one of those things where systemic bias can put you on the wrong leg. Which is also why I'm sticking with my weak keep. I still don't think that notability has been sufficiently demonstrated, but I still think it at least likely that someone who knows the Korean and/or Chinese sources on e-sports will unearth sufficient to demonstrate notability - and that this likely can't be done during the running time of this AfD. That we have no deadline cuts both ways. There is no rush in getting this into mainspace, nor is there any hurry to source it better - though it has to be done eventually, and can't be put of indefinitely. While it is in mainspace it is likelier to get to an acceptable level of sourcing - if that sourcing turns out to exist - than outside it as a draft or userfied piece, and definitely easier than when we delete it now. What it comes down to is that I think the damage we would do by deleting now if it turns out notable later will be almost irreparable, while the damage we do by keeping while it turns out later it's not notable after all is slight. I think we may be better off to err at the safe side. In the upcoming period we can then take a look at what in general the good sources for e-sports players are, and revisit this and other players notability when we have a better grasp on where to look for sources on this subject. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused, @Martijn Hoekstra:. What exactly are we playing it safe on? What "damage"? We're talking about a person's who's claim to fame is "playing video games good", not a powerful politician or business person or something. I'm having a hard time reconciling your stance like that with things like WP:BLP standards too, what you're proposing is pretty much the opposite of how we handle BLPs... Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern about BLP, but there are plenty reliable primary sources from the tournaments he has taken part in to satisfy WP:V, even for BLP's, it's only notability I'm concerned with for this player. "playing video games good" in this case good enough to be a fully professional player, and frankly, I don't see the difference between "playing video games good", "running quickly", "hitting a ball with a bat real hard", etc. Whether or not you or I acknowledge e-sports as something valuable isn't really relevant as long as sources do. And they do: Korea has entire tv channels devoted to e-sports, and for this game in particular, see DOTA_2#Professional_competition. What I'm not sure of is whether this particular player meets the threshold of notability, but at the same time I'm very aware that it's difficult finding sources in Chinese and Korean through Google, and even more so with a transliterated name. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part of my message about him being a video game player was merely in reference to "playing it safe" or "avoiding damage" - as in, I don't understand any sort of repercussion for the deletion of this sort of article. There would be huge "damage done" if we deleted Bill Clinton or abortion or something. Not sure I see it happening with an article of this caliber. That's all that part was about - I recognize that it doesn't matter what he does, it ultimately comes down to if there's the third party sources that meet the WP:GNG. And that's why your stance puzzles me - a "well I can't find sources but lets keep anyways". How is that a policy-based keep argument? Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A subject with the importance of Bill Clinton would never have such questionable notability as this biography has. But that notability is questionable doesn't mean it's absent. I don't mind checking if I can get some help with finding sources to do a decent web search, and to find the relevant magazines that would be likely to have coverage, and then see if I can find content of those ( http://issuu.com/dota2magazine/docs/dota2magazine_4_ru is one magazine devoted to DOTA2, which will certainly have player profiles for example, and it's quite possible Fei Chi is among them), but I certainly won't be able to do so before the current AfD relisting expires, and I'm not even sure I will be able to do so if there is another re-listing which is questionable in the first place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you misunderstand my example. I'm listing example articles that would be "damaging" if we deleted them, in an effort to understand why you feel the need to "play it safe" in this instance, something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. Not sure how it would damage the project if a poorly sourced BLP of a barely-more-than-a-stub article that basically serves as a trophy list, was deleted. Seems a lot worst to keep this sort of thing around. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly quite shocked we're still discussing this, there's definitely a precedence for deleting this poorly sourced esports player BLP articles. Past ones have had clear consensus to delete:

All of these very similar articles ended as "Delete". Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb your discussion. After these, I have a question. Did you keep at least one article about e-sports players from the previous deletion nomination? If so, I hope you can give an example of a good article for e-sports player. If not, I think wiki really lack a way to determine notable for e-sports player. You list many articles which were deleted by wiki (Actually I don't know much about these articles). Then in this page I listed more articles above, that means it will delete more articles. Thus, the consensus is if an article is about e-sports player, then it will be deleted when it is nominated. Hence why create a Category Electronic sports players by nationality or Category Electronic sports players . Actually based on these, I think these categories should not exist. Miracle dream (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2014‎
Dan Stemkoski is an example of a fairly well referenced article that I don't think should be any discussion about (but feel free to disagree if you do Sergecross ;) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this one is a commentator not an e-sports player. Actually he is notable for his commentary not for his performance in any tournaments. It just like someone is not famous when he is a player but become widely known after retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2)No need to be shocked about people disagreeing about when content should or shouldn't be kept; it's quite OK to disagree over it. I still think there is a very good chance this person is notable. But it seems like we're not getting any closer to each other in this discussion. Maybe we can look at finding (local) consensus. How about a merge of verifiable information to Invictus Gaming? I'll be happy as we won't be binning stuff I think may be notable (but we don't know that yet, googling Chinese sources is terrible), and we won't have the stand-alone title, which should satisfy you, I think. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Stemkoski is a good example, yes, as far as the type of coverage in sources that an article should have. There's all sorts of sources used that have a prior consensus on their reliability at WP:VG/S. (GameZone, Polygon, Kotaku, etc) Yes, I would be happy with a "Merge" compromise as well as long as it didn't impede on a delete consensus if that somehow managed to arise from all of this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Dan Stemkoski is notable as a commentator not for his performance in any tournaments as a player. There is still no good example for an e-sports player. Another thing is if "Merge", can you create an article like Dota2 or e-sports player and then merge every dota2 or other e-sports player in this article? Some player I listed like Danylo Ishutin which has the same problem can also be merged in this article when you want to delete his article. Even you can merge someone you has deleted but famous.This is just my suggestion.You can choose an applicable way.Miracle dream (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014‎
Well, regardless, Dan Stemkoski is still a good example of the types of sources that are usable/necessary, and the sort of content that should be there. (ie, not just a laundry list of tournaments he's one. There's real substance there.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem I said. For e-sports, it is even hard to find a good example for a player in wiki. When try to find some good article, can just find a commentator from player category (Actually this should be in wrong category). This is why I think maybe wiki need a more sufficient way for e-sports players. I know commentator is important for a tournament but I think players should be the same as commentator especially for these successful players.I feel maybe in electronic player category, you can only find some articles of commentator or online poker and chase players which should not be in electronic sports category. Miracle dream (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2014‎
Sorry, I think its hard to find a good example because so many them either don't meet the WP:GNG, and/or are just terribly written. (Many of them follow the same format of excessive tournament listing and going largely unsourced or poorly sourced. Whoever's writing these things don't tend to be experienced article writer/creators.) Most of them I come across are actually already here at WP:AFD, and end up being deleted, like my collection of links above showed, so I don't usually come across any good ones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, still surprised this hasn't garnered any more discussion beyond the nominator, an WP:SPA article creator, and myself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the WP:SPA you said is me. If not, I make an apology to say these to you. If so, I wonder why you describe me like that. If there is no this kind of discussion, I will not appear in this page again.Then I have wiki account since 2011 (only used a few times, maybe just 5 or 6 days) but I know I start to edit in 2013 and have 2-year-gap. I also joined many other articles edition which I am familiar.Maybe the area I joined was narrow because of the narrow knowledge limitation. I just vote one time and other contents are all my opinion not votes in this page. I don't know what is the difference in this page between me and you.Then admin Martijn Hoekstra also joined this discussion not just me.At last, I may edited the article we discussed one more time and will never edited it again.If you don't want to discussed with me,I may not join this discussion again.I think I have stated all my opinions.Sorry to write these.I just feel I may not get the respect and even feel a kind of personal attacks (Maybe it is just my illusion). I may not know much about wiki rule like you but I will try to realize. Thank you. If I misunderstand you words,I apologize. If you want to reply something about this, you can write in my talk page. Thank you.Miracle dream (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2014‎
SPA is not an attack or an insult. It just means "single purpose account". As in, every single edit in like the last 100 or 200 edits you've made to the project has been related to Luo Feichi. (Or at least 99% of them.) Its just a description. The prospect is usually just mentioned to note that a user is probably more concerned with the topic of the article than building an encyclopedia. Your arguments have been more about the defense of e-sports and Luo rather than Wikipedia policy, correct? Which is fine, you're new here, and that appears to be your personal interest. But its not supposed to be what deletion stances are supposed to be centered around. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 17 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luo_Feichi&oldid=1136109833"