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. There probably needs to be a separate discussion on whether people like this should be included in WP:ATHLETE, but there is a clear consensus in those comments that did reference policy that the article does not meet WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer)[edit]

Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable professional gamer. Ridernyc (talk) 05:02, 19 October 2011 (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) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want WP:Athlete to cover this I would recomend going there and getting concensus there first. Ridernyc (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to already cover it under the "Generally acceptable standards" criteria 1. Criteria 2 is for more specific sports, but I don't think it's necessary for a more specific section in this case. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure you would have trouble getting consensus for your stance there. There is already a conversation on this topic here [1] and as you can see there is little to no support for an exception to the GNG for Professional Gamers. Not saying there should or shouldn't be, just pointing out that at this time there is no consensus for inclusion of these articles. As I pointed out in other places, if this person is truly notable show me some reliable sources. It should not be that hard or require debate. Ridernyc (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exception to the GNG appears to already have consensus established: WP:ATHLETE general criteria #1. If you believe that criteria is incorrect or misleading, then you could certainly make a case as such. But as I read it, it refers to major international professional competitions. I guess the question then is, was the tournament major and international? It was certainly international; the name of the competition was "The International". I think it was major as well. It was held at the world's largest games event, Gamescom, which has over 275,000 visitors. It was also hosted by Valve Corporation, arguably one of the biggest names in online gaming. By all accounts it fits the established consensus. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your interpretation and you are welcome to it, but there a clear consensus that not all international competition satisfies WP:Athlete. In this neither the sport, the leagues, the teams, the competitions.... get substantial independent coverage. Basically WP:Athlete says notability is inherited in a sport or competition, in this case the sport and competition is marginally notable at best. Again I encourage you to start a conversation at the various notability guidelines if you feel this way, but at this time I do not see any guidelines or consensus that covers professional gamers. Ridernyc (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT related discussions as these players also participated in Dota 2 The International. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Toft-Andersen (Maelk from MeetYourMakers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zou Yitian (820 from EHOME). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reliable sources covering this player in a significant fashion are found, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Coverage about his team does not suffice. The Interior (Talk) 18:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the WP:ATHLETE general acceptable standards critera #1? I think this person falls under that specific criteria. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I'm all for making some cyberathlete changes to that guideline, but that's the future. As to whether the tournament is notable, I'm not sure. Is it recurring, or a one-off? Why don't we have an article on it? I think for that exemption to apply, we'd have to be talking about something highly visible. After all, the example the guideline uses is the Olympics. The Interior (Talk) 23:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament will be recurring, and it is mentioned in the article Dota 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have an exemption if it can only be applied to the Olympics? It would have just said "And the olympics is notable" if that is how it was meant to be applied. We don't have an article because wikipedia is incomplete, but the tournament is certainly notable and there is nothing stopping its creation at some point in the future. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice I said example. The phrasing is "a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". Notable wouldn't be enough. The Interior (Talk) 00:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I made a case for above, it does appear to have been a major event, held at the largest annual video games event in the world. Well under 100,000 attend the Super Bowl. Not everyone coming to Gamescom attended for this tournament, but we don't have a breakdown of attendees based on what events at they attended at Gamescom. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think drawing an analogy between Gamescom and the Super Bowl is a bit of a stretch. But more importantly, I don't see any indication that e-sports is currently covered under Athlete, so this is moot. If iI was looking to rescue this article, I'd be looking for Ukranian-language profiles that would satisfy GNG. The Interior (Talk) 00:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • e-sports is covered under athlete, at least in china its officially the 99th sport [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I meant is that they are not currently covered under our policy WP:ATHLETE. Whether they are athletes or not is a wider debate which would most likely have to be settled outside of Wikipedia. The Interior (Talk) 01:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question asked there was "Is there a criteria for professional esports players?" The answer is obviously no, there is not specific criteria for pro esports players. However, there is general criteria for athletes in general, which I feel does apply. No need to form a specific consensus if a general consensus can already be applied. That's why we have the criteria in WP:ATHLETE. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the answer was no use the GNG. Funny how you ignore that. Consensus is use the GNG, it has been said repeatedly in multiple places. Ridernyc (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, using the GNG is one option. The other option which I think should be applied here is to use WP:ATHLETE, since he is an athlete. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think he is not a real athlete, and this event is not comparable to the olympics. If he can't pass GNG, it should be a delete... Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, The World Cyber Games is the third most viewed international event after the olympics and the fifa world cup. I would like to point out that The International has a much higher prize pool and will be recurring, thus it should be a notable event. Redefining history (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I created this account cos i dont have another wikipedia account. whats the problem with that? Redefining history (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inviting other people to come and take part in these debates[5] is against policy [6]. Ridernyc (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inviting them to give me ideas, not to join this debate. Redefining history (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
people can look at what you said there and make up their own minds. At this point I don't see an meat puppetry though, just putting the not ice out there. Ridernyc (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note the stated intention on that site to re-create these articles after the debate has ended... --Crusio (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is that eSports is not a sport? The Wall Street Journal seems to think differently: "This summer, "Starcraft II" has become the newest barroom spectator sport." [7]. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also the argument of all the people in the centralized discussions about it. Playing video games is not widely considered a sport. That some people call it a sport is not debated, but that does not make it one. If the person is notable then find GNG coverage of it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All this energy being wasted here. Seriously I would love to see an inclusion criteria for these people hammered out. Maybe if people would actually work on that instead of arguing endlessly in AFD debates we might get somewhere. As it is right now these articles will be deleted all this hot air will blow away and down the road we will have the same exact argument in another AFD. If you want these types of articles be proactive about it, change consensus, write guidelines, improve the project. Ridernyc (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change the consensus here, but consensus appears to be that consensus is determined at AFD. So here we go. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion isn't related to this one...nowhere in it do you mention professional e-gamers. What he/she is suggesting is that someone work to create a SNG for gaming that the community agrees to accept. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to help draft a proposal. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@DJSasso: The reason I made that discussion was because of this AFD. As you said there, consensus should be formed at AFD and then described in an SNG after it has been formed. Or am I misunderstanding you? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of...what I was saying is that guidelines aren't best practices. We don't write them and then try and get people to follow them. They are created by the observation of long term practice on the wiki and then the guidelines are adjusted to fit. However, trying to claim e-sports is an actual sport will take an actual discussion on a talk page. A user already brought it up in a couple of places and that isn't likely to get consensus. Which is why its been suggested you try and create a SNG for e-sports. And then propose it as a proposed guideline and then people will comment/!vote on whether or not they think it fits and is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, ..." The fact that you don't consider esports an actual sport is no more important than that, as a supporter of American football, I don't consider soccer an actual sport. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are from that standpoint, but not in the way you are describing them. Secondly from the article sport "Some non-physical activities, such as board games and card games are sometimes referred to as sports, but a sport is generally recognised as being based in physical athleticism." Your argument is a strawman....football is clearly a sport. Playing a video game however doesn't fit the definition. -DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend you two either carry on on your talk pages or move the debate to WP:Athlete this really has little to do with this AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since he is trying to claim it meets WP:ATHLETE it has everything to do with this afd. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those sources have not been posted here before. --Odie5533 talk 17:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the talk page at WP:Athlete disagrees with you. Ridernyc (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On reading it, I'd say it's less than clear actually. In any case, I think the notion that top members of their sport/activity/whatever are worth having articles on seems applicable even if it doesn't fall under WP:ATHLETE. Eh, I can live with it either way. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words even though this person totally fails the GNG you like it so we should keep it. Ridernyc (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is not perfect in all cases. That's part of the reason we have SNGs. --Odie5533 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in other words I find we have a policy for X and I find Y closely corresponds to X and so is a reasonable basis for a precedent. I honestly don't care a bit about professional gaming. But given that it is a professional competitive activity, I'd argue we should probably treat it as we do similar things (including chess players, bowlers and race car drivers). Hobit (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus, where did anyone say this was a jock/nerd thing? Or is that maybe something you just made up? I'm going to say that my multiple Star Wars userboxes probably at least negates your theory that those who vote delete are "anti-nerd". I have argued that playing video games is not a real sport and shouldn't be looked at through the prism of WP:ATHLETE. And, BTW, just winning a million buck doesn't make you notable. Significant coverage via reliable sources does. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I should give you interviews instead? Here you go [http://prodota.ru/ru/news/artstyleinterviewasus [9] [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 02:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The start of the interviews offers features of the player, which are secondary sources. Redefining history (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are articles about him under google news. [11] [12] [13] Redefining history (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More from google news [14] [15] [16] [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redefining history (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This time from russian sources. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Redefining history (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To The Bushranger's comments, interviews can be primary or secondary sources, depending on the circumstances. [24] No one figured out a way to reword that guideline page. Dream Focus 10:49, 26 October 2011 (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.
More