ARMS Institute talk:Tournament notability

Support. We're inevitably going to have to cover the tournament scene once it starts and this seems like a great outline on how we should cover it. Its detailed and doesn't seem controversial to me. BSTIK (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2017 (EDT)

Support. Looks like a good outline to me. Will be useful in the future when people start making metagame articles. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 10:51, 20 June 2017 (EDT)
 * It should probably be renamed to "Tournament notability", though, because other notability is covered by the deletion policy. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 09:00, 21 June 2017 (EDT)

Sponsorship as player criteria
Should we add being sponsored as another means for a player to be considered notable? I've noticed some players with pages on this wiki don't meet the placement or TO criteria but do have sponsorships from reputable organizations. This to me suggests pretty major relevance that deserves a page, but I'm open to discussion on the matter. Nyargleblargle (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that players with sponsorships definitely have a degree of notoriety, but I don't think it should be a requirement to be considered notable. The only reason I think this is that ARMS is nowhere close to the levels of other competitive games (mainly in terms of scope and player base) so the number of sponsored players is likely to be fairly low. I know that there are a lot of notable players who I believe should get pages, but aren't sponsored. Players who happen to be sponsored are, most likely, easy candidates of being notable though. I also feel like the a lot of the definitions for notability could use some tweaking (due to the size of the game's competitive scene), but that's a different topic. --Frosty (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we require sponsorships, just that we make it another way for a player to be considered notable. Nyargleblargle (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)