Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FaZe Clan

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. The discussion indicates sufficient sources for Keep, but clearly there is concern about the article becoming (again) engorged with trivia. That type of content question is not an issue for AfD to resolve. Editors who are worried about this should watchlist the article and edit to maintain an appropriate scope for the content. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FaZe Clan

[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)

Huge article. I didn't go through all the 200+ references but it looks like there is nothing that would match our standards, only blogs, twitter, youtube etc. My search in a news database also did no yield substantial results, just mentioned in a couple of minor pieces about others. wikitigresito (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it down to what could be reliably sourced just from the article text. That... that was much more than expected. That said there are plenty of sources for this article. I'm in the realm of keep. --Izno (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Izno's edits. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FaZe Clan doesn't have a blog or a website that yields news. FaZe Clan announces news through their social media. Krafko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic appears to be in line with WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My changes were reverted by DaKrafko. DaKrafko, you need to provide reliable sources which are independent of the topic to support an article. Your version of the article is not appropriate. I will insist on deletion of the article if you do not revert yourself. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dissident93 and Mgbo120: In case the above comment influences your opinion. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Izno: I also support full deletion if the reverted information returns. 95% of this info belongs on Liquidpedia or some other site and not here. We already have WT:VG consensus against listing rosters in these pages, but this just strengthens the need for a full esports MOS even more. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which sources aren't reliable for example? The ones in history, members, etc? Because I added lots of sources to history. Krafko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - YouTube and Twitter are not reliable. There are others that are not reliable also that I removed in my revision. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is an excessive amount of inappropriate information on the page (and it's a target for troublesome edits to that information); I agree that information such as full membership lists and detailed competition results, when sourced only to their Twitter account should be removed. I don't see a good reason to delete this article entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please point be to the independent reliable sources supporting the article? Also, if we keep the piece, it needs a substantial trim and not a detailed history including 292 (!!!) references wikitigresito (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikitigresito: I provided those sources in my original comment. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean the version of the article at this permalink? Thanks for your work. I think your version of the article could be acceptable and pass WP:GNG, although it is a close call, because only the Guardian reference is of "highest quality" and not exclusively about the clan. wikitigresito (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed that version, as well as the sources identified in the WP:VGSE, which is [1]. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh dear, almost the entire article is sourced to YouTube videos and Twitter (nearly 300 references!). You need secondary RS coverage, and these aren't it. The article needs a rewrite, I'd be inclined to delete it and start over if there is no improvement. Hzh (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (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.