User talk:Zxcvbnm

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Opinion on article

[edit]

Hi @Zxcvbnm. I saw this AI character, Tilly Norwood, in the news recently. Curiously, I searched to see if she had a Wikipedia article, and as it turns out, she does. The sources are pretty much all from reliable news reporters, however I feel this comes under WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTWHOSWHO, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think an AfD would probably end up as snow keep due to the significant number of sources. I don't think I am bold enough to nominate this, definitely not without a second opinion. Having only just been created and having no starring roles, I don't think Norwood qualifies for an article at all at this time. At this moment, she merely just exists. I'm interested to know your thoughts. 11WB (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this easily falls under WP:TOOSOON, but is another case like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clanker where it would probably still be kept due to anticipated future notability and WP:IAR despite technically violating policy. I would just monitor it, and if in several months the amount of coverage is nonexistent, an AfD would likely get far more credence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way, often WP:NOTNEWS is totally ignored when the news item is major enough as there is no hardline enforcement of the rule like a speedy deletion policy for articles with an incredibly short span of recent coverage. In these cases it can be virtually impossible to get rid of until the news dies down due to the sheer popularity factor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the AfD for Clanker after it closed. I would've argued for deletion under WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Though it dates back to 2005, it's obscure (definitely getting deja vu). There are essays for specific topics that get articles for everything, such as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Maybe AICRUFT would be worth creating? I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing going forward. 11WB (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write such an essay, then knock yourself out, but I don't think it will make a tangible difference unless there is some sort of more hardline enforcement. It's just a flaw in the design of Wikipedia (though some might call it beneficial as the popularity of such articles attracts numerous new editors who may go on to other pages). The general tactic here is waiting a while and, if it really was just a total flash in the pan, you can point to that retroactively in an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Norwood ends up actually being cast in films, which would make her potentially the first AI actress to do so, I don't think this is anything more than a random company using Google Veo to create a person. The benefit to writing an essay is being able to link to that instead of 5 separate policies/guidelines that also fit. One essay has the ability to cover it all on one page and be written in relation to AI specifically. 11WB (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User ignoring your warning

[edit]

In late July you warned Kvng here about removing prods, and yet he did it again on Melbourne City Wrestling with the edit summary "numerous incoming links indicate potential importance".[1] If possible could you please reverse that prod? The top of the article indicates serious issues that these links likely do not address and I agree with the reason for the prod. If you could also warn Kvng off again it would be appreciated. 2001:8000:1580:CF00:81F:A95B:4C93:77C2 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately while I had a whole discussion about it with an admin, their hands are tied due to the extremely permissive policy for removing PRODs. I think that it's rather spurious but you can remove a PROD for any reason, even a gut instinct or hunch with zero evidence, and not be punished at all for mass removal of PRODs for no reason. He is also not going through and deleting every single PROD so it can't properly be called disruptive. Your only recourse is sending it to AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Aggro Crab

[edit]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know I've declined your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Aggro Crab because the current article is not sufficiently similar to the one deleted via discussion. Specifically, the new article cites multiple sources that were not provided in the previous draft nor in the deletion discussion. If you think the Aggro Crab still fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, feel free to re-nominate for deletion via AFD. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hey. Do you think that any of these games meet our notability guidelines: [2] and [3]. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sequel does seem to be notable, as it got reviews in several gaming magazines. The first game doesn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Will work on Santa Claus in Trouble... Again! then. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Warcraft Emberthal.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warcraft Emberthal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of reception?

[edit]

Some years ago I expanded Jin Kazama to make it worth GA but nowadays that the notability guidelines changed, I tried expanding some parts about the reception since besides some books, Jin's character became more notable thanks to the Tekken 8 story mode. You think some parts are worth removing? It bugged me it became so big and I wondered if some sources are better removed. Feel free to edit it if you want to be bold.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There is unanimous consensus"

[edit]

You should temper that claim in Talk:Hedda, it may have been consensus, but it was hardly unanimous :) --Joy (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be unanimous amongst those who made a definitive statement. With regards to your comments, I didn't see clear support or opposition of the nomination, just raising some concern about recentism which was essentially moot since this is not moving the 2025 film to primary, just saying there is no primary with regards to the 1975 film, 2025 film and given name of unclear notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krisalis Software

[edit]

Hi! I'm not seeing anything else for Krisalis Software. (probably not notable)

Was wondering if you see any more sources? Timur9008 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timur9008: I found one piece of SIGCOV here, still searching. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timur9008: Found another SIGCOV: [4] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timur9008: And a third SIGCOV from when they were called Teque Software [5]. It's safe to say they pass WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than I thought. Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on an old draft

[edit]

Hello Zxcvbnm, I hope you're well! 🙂 It's been just about six months since Draft:Durrr Burger was draftifyed, and you likewise informed me about what WP:THREE and WP:AKON were: two policies* I not only didn't know about, but also couldn't wrap my head around until you explained them. Understanding these has not only shaped my understanding of notability on Wikipedia, but tremendously helped me in performing New Page Reviews since then, and I'm really grateful.
With that glaze out of the way, I wanted to take another look at the draft as it was just about at that point where it'd get deleted for inactivity. After doing another brief search on the internet for sources, do you think the these articles linked below meet WP:THREE?

If you have a second I'd really appreciate if you could take a brief read through each of these. The Dot Esports one for example doesn't have a very promising title but I still feel meets the requirements when you read it. With 44 sources on the draft, WP:AKON concerns still apply, I just wanted to see if the minimum notability could be met yet. Have a blessed day, ~ Johnson524 06:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524: "ExitLag" does not come up anywhere and I'd assume it is unreliable per WP:BLOG. If you think it's reliable, please post it on WP:VG/S talk page so others can check it. I think it's heavily unlikely, though.
The one from Spiel Times seems like pure content farming. The Dot Esports one is not SIGCOV. Therefore, none of them would likely meet WP:THREE. I feel like it's in the same place as before. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This caught my eye. @Johnson524, I thought I would offer a second opinion from an NPP viewpoint. The sources on the draft are substantial. I don't think the issue is with whether it passes WP:GNG, but rather with MOS:IN-U (I agree with what @Pokelego999 says here). I can see however that the breakdown of how it is written in the draft does inadvertently bring GNG into the mix. This I believe validates @Zxcvbnm's previous concerns. It's a good article however! I similarly experienced this recently with GXSCC, albeit with much less participation. There is a fairly high bar for what passes as notable. WP:AKON is fine, but it's down to the sources ultimately! 11WB (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very much a WP:GNG issue. Amount of sources does not matter if SIGCOV does not exist, that would be a faulty WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument. The page was initially draftified due to a lack of SIGCOV and these don't really change that. Tl;dr, it's a quality over quantity issue, a few good sources would've been sufficient if they were really indepth. Durr Burger's sources are entirely run-of-the-mill announcements, game guide type content and what have you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked some of them. @Johnson524 has been a new page reviewer longer than me, so I trust that their knowledge of what is an WP:RS and is SIGCOV is true. As laid out here, 18 of the sources qualify this. I did previously accept Isaiah in the Book of Mormon through AfC, and only found out after that it was written in a way that goes against MOS. I wouldn't have !voted to keep this draft, but I think draftication so that sources can be found and a change in tone inplemented is definitely appropriate. That's all I wanted to say though, @Johnson524 can keep working on this if they want to! 11WB (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween

[edit]

Hey, I know I asked before, but are you interested in getting Deathclaw and/or Tonberry out? I feel like I managed to find enough sources to make them notable, and since this is Halloween, it might be fun to get one or both of them posted today. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deathclaw is the longer and more developed article (more than double the size), so I'll see what I can do to expand it today. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Okay, the recreation of the article is done, though there are likely some sources I didn't use. You may also want to add an image, though I'll probably add one eventually if nobody gets to it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Never mind about the image. I forgot I could just grab the original image from Wayback Machine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, didn't feel like picking an ideal image, haha - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Akira Yuki

[edit]

Hi there. If possible could you revise the draft I made? Draft:Akira Yuki. There are some weak sources I kept from the previous merged article but I tried adding more sources from Cukie's research that focus far more on the character. There is also a book I found in Google books that heavily focus on him and some comments from Tecmo producer including the late Itagaki. I'm an expert in Virtua Fighter but I wondered if it might be possible Akira has at the least the three demanded sources needed to pass notability. Cheers. Tintor2 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]