Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 26	March 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seemingly fails to meet the WP:NCORP, with a WP:BEFORE showing a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Education, Technology, Computing, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Day (Law & Order)

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

Not notable. Google books/news/scholar gives zero sources to show this article has any notability. The article also has templates from almost ten years ago (!) about the article not having sources. Article is mainly description of the episode plot and has no reception tab. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Ratones

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Caedrel per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Los Ratones does have coverage in reliable sources focused on esports, such as Esports Illustrated (a subsidiary of Sports Illustrated), The Esports Insider, Esports News UK, and Esports.gg, but the coverage does not establish a claim to notability.

An organisation being popular because of its owner (Caedrel) and players' fanbase does not speak to the notability of the organisation, but to the owner and players. Being the first professional / semi-professional team to be allowed to live stream practice games ('scrims') is not an incredibly notable element even within just the purview of League of Legends esports.

The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters). General popularity driven by its owner and players does not equate to standalone notability, but probably does warrant a mention in the owner's (primarily) and players' articles. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. I completely agree with the proposal. Labratscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sports teams, and especially esports teams are not covered under WP:NSPORT.

The sheer amount of coverage and fanfare from esports journals is unprecedented for a team this new(with no prior continuity) and playing at this level. Even in the linked articles, specifically the one from esports.gg, there are claims of notability here:

"Los Ratones revitalized a small league"

"It's not an understatement that Caedrel and his team saved the NLC as a whole,"

"it's undeniable that Los Ratones brought some changes to the esports industry's business model"

Just two days ago Dimitri Pascaluta of TheScore Esports stated

"Los Ratones are basically single-handedly revitalizing western League"

And he's made similar statements in the past published by TheScore Esports such as

"Los Ratones are changing competitive League"

"For us western fans, (Los Ratones) is the best thing to happen to League of legends since 2019"

I can find other examples if wanted about prominent LoL journalists or prominent figures in the LoL pro scene espousing LR's significance if wanted. If the issue is poor sourcing, that is not grounds for deletion. The esports.gg article you linked passes the criteria in WP:SIRS and I can easily find others such as this one from SI. Otherwise, I fail to see how LR doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ORG.

I agree that neither winning a minor tournament, popularizing scrim streaming, having several high profile members within the scene, having a large fanbase, nor simply recieving coverage from reputable journals on their own constitute notability for Los Ratones, but surely the sum of the team's contributions to professional LoL do. LR get vastly more media coverage than most teams, media coverage that mentions the significance of specifically the team, and while if the popularity of the team were simply a result of Caedrel, then the proposal to move the LR page to a section on the Caedrel page would have merit, but that's an inaccurate assertion. TheBausFFS is the second biggest English language LoL streamer(behind Caedrel), Rekkles is one of the most popular European pros even just half a year ago having been on stage lifting the worlds 2024 trophy with the rest of T1, and Nemesis also has had a very prominent following for years. Should each of them, who have all espoused LR as being so personally significant to them, and each have brought their own audience to LR have a "Los Ratones" section in their pages?

The sheer amount of references to LR in otherwise unrelated LoL broadcasts and online discussions should reinforce the need that a Wikipedia article exist for it. It's already clear from the past 5 months that LR's influence isn't just tied to any specific event or person, and while it's exceptional for organizations of this kind to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article within such little time, in this case, I argue the criteria is met. Bausen Slaw (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of Los Ratones' claim to notability. Popularity != notability. A lot of personalities are well-known and covered in their respective niches, but they don't have a claim to fame aside from being popular. Opinions and praise, even from relevant people in the scene, are irrelevant to this discussion.

My point was that Los Ratones does have coverage in the esports scene, but it's within the background of the articles' larger discussions of the owner (Caedrel) or players, or in one article's case, Doublelift. Los Ratones, the organisation / team itself, has not achieved or done anything notable; the actions you highlighted were decisions made by Caedrel. Accordingly, the sources we gave aren't focused on what the organisation did but what Caedrel did with his organisation; i.e. Los Ratones is covered because Caedrel is covered.

Therefore, the notability is inherited from Caedrel and the topic is better suited in Caedrel's article if retained in some capacity. As a standalone topic, the team has one title in a tier-three tournament, possibly a title in a tier-two tournament in the near future, and its biggest achievement outside of competition is starting the trend of having its practice games live streamed. I argue that's not enough for standalone notability. Yue🌙 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though LR have just won the EMEA Masters on their first-ever attempt, I would ask you to seriously reconsider your conclusion that LR are not "notable" as per the guidelines. Caedrel started LR with very little, if any, coaching experience and his team has won every single tournament they have competed in. That in itself is notable. The team's notability is not just inherited from Caedrel, but rather the popularity and attention the team has collectively attracted. They are a mixture of ex-retired competitive players, high-ranking European players, and content creators, and they are all over the esports news scene, especially recently. LR's existence and popularity are the reason their EMEA finals match has garnered the most views in the competition's history.

I would not propose the deletion of an entire article that enables people to cherish, appreciate and recognise LR's accomplishments just because better sources can be cited. Those sources undoubtedly exist, and are a testament to LR deserving their own page. In my view, you have not proven that LR's notability has fallen below the threshold as per the guidelines. Iyanakin (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every topic has value for someone. My arguments are based on policy, not my personal feelings. As I argued above, it does not matter that a team has fans; all professional and semi-professional teams have fans, especially if their players are well known. Los Ratones winning a tier-two tournament does not change my argument, which you and others can challenge and argue against by citing policy. Instead of alluding to sources that "undoubtedly exist" (presumably you mean in-depth coverage as well), just cite them. Also, a less-than-day-old account concluding that I have not proven a policy-based argument after citing their feelings as the basis for notability rather than the notability guidelines is something. Yue🌙 18:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it doesn't matter how old my or your account is - that's a fallacious "appeal to authority" as you're trying to legitimise your argument based on how long you've been an editor on this site. I work full-time and viewed that your hopes of removing LR from Wikipedia were serious enough to warrant making an account and defending LR's online presence. I couldn't care less about how long you've had your account, but I would question your authority on the topic of esports given the majority of your more obvious background relates to editing articles about country flags. What I care more about is your brazen disregard for anything "notable" that LR have done. It seems to me that you don't understand what "notable" actually means.

I don't disagree with your policy argument at all. I never spoke about "fans" or my emotions in my reply, so you're unfortunately attacking a straw man. There are also other arguments to be made apart from policy arguments, and while they can be convincing, there is no automatic superiority of policy arguments if we were to make a hierarchy of argument types. It is very reasonable to argue that popularity does not necessarily make something notable, but there is often a strong correlation between the two, as in LR's case. I never said LR should not disappear from Wikipedia merely because they are popular. But I will still bother to list below several weaknesses in your argument, and why, starting with the most obvious.

"The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters)." If that isn't notable, what is? Winning the LEC? Winning Worlds?

You don't actually explain why those things are not notable. You diminish LR's achievements by speaking of tournaments in terms of tiers. LR won the NNO Cup, NLC and the EMEA Masters on their first attempt, which is every competition they tried competing in since the team's inception in November 2024. Hilariously, they even beat T1 in a showmatch. Dom Sacco, an award-winning esports journalist, writes how LR "make history with the EMEA Masters Winter 2025 win, become first UK-registered esports organisation to claim an EM title": https://esports-news.co.uk/2025/03/23/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025/. This is not the first time Esports News UK has written about LR: https://esports-news.co.uk/2024/12/09/nno-cup-season-2-recap-los-ratones/. Sports Illustrated have done so: https://www.si.com/esports/news/los-ratones-dominate-emea-masters-recap-league-of-legends, and so have Esports Insider: https://esportsinsider.com/2025/03/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025-viewership, PCGamesN: https://www.pcgamesn.com/league-of-legends/los-ratones-esports, The Pinnacle Gazette: https://evrimagaci.org/tpg/los-ratones-the-rise-of-league-of-legends-newcomers-99443, BetUS: https://www.betus.com.pa/esports/news/los-ratones-are-the-nno-cup-season-2-winners-12-10-2024/, and Esports.net: https://www.esports.net/news/lol/los-ratones-win-emea-masters-winter/. You get the idea. These are all independent media outlets as far as LR are concerned, and you have not explained why LR's achievements, in light of this coverage and the wealth of information it includes, are not notable.

How about some other reasons LR are notable? I'll just list them here as there's too much to say.

Their players come from a diverse range of backgrounds, have many achievements, and from an external perspective, have not received anywhere near as much financial and training support as some of the other teams they have competed against, such as KCB. They are a very small team outside the starting five players, and are able to sustain themselves thanks to content creation. This makes LR seem like a very strange yet unique combination of different parts. Caedrel has been a content creator for ages and has himself admitted that he does not have much, if any coaching experience outside LR. Baus never competed seriously in a professional capacity and is known for his extremely unconventional playstyle, proving that he can still succeed in pro play with such a style, as seen recently during the EMEA Masters. Velja is similar but has ranked very highly in European ranked play. This is to be contrasted with Crownie and Nemesis, who have re-entered the competitive scene, moving on from previously very successful careers, including where they both won the EMEA Masters together 7 years ago. Rekkles was most recently a sub when T1 won Worlds, and has competed in Worlds before to come 2nd with Fnatic. What may have started out as a passion project between these players has become much more serious and high-stakes. They are very fan-oriented, which many other competitive players and their team staff members have commented on, in the way they bond with their communities and show their esports development journey. They stream their scrims, which is highly unusual given they are essentially exposing their tactics for anyone to make use of however they wish, including their competitors, and have inspired other pro play teams to do so too.

In winning the EMEA Masters, LR have become the first UK-registered team to do so ever. In competing with LR, Rekkles has become the first-ever player to win the EMEA Masters in ADC and support, two different roles. This would not have been possible with LR. I highly doubt any of these players would appreciate their achievements with LR being reduced to something they are solely and only responsible for, or something mainly attributable to Caedrel's popularity before founding LR. In many instances, they have said how their achievements would not have been possible without LR, such as Velja, who was the MVP for the EMEA Masters final. LR, as a newly emerging team, have made a significant portion of LOL players/watchers actually enjoy watching pro play given the way they have been able to captivate and entertain their community, which no other team similar to their size and history has been able to do recently. If you want to continue insisting that all of this, when taken together, is not notable enough for its own page on Wikipedia, be my guest. Iyanakin (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bit of Love (Kesha song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the critical reception section and references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception section is all album reviews, which NSONG specifies don't establish notability. There's not one source that is about this song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion so far contains assertions about sourcing and notability, but actual analysis of sourcing beyond the nominator would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]