Zxcvbnm

Draft of Space_Invaders_(1999)

I appreciate the feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Space_Invaders_(1999), but can you tell me which sources you didn't consider reliable? Yes, there's a lot of IGN content, but also Wired. Apart from IGN, there aren't many sites that carried gaming news in that area that are still easily accessible today.

If you give me a hint of what you're looking for, I can try to find additional references... print magazines? Retrospective books? To be honest, though, I'm not sure what purpose that serves; surely there's no doubt that this game existed, was materially different from the 1978 original, and was generally as described in the cited sources? AlcibiadesDX (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I found these sources you can use , , , , Timur9008 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, as Timur said above you should use some or all of those sources. As for what is reliable or not, if it's not listed in WP:VG/S it's likely unreliable (if it's not some magazine publication), the page also has a list of unreliable or situational sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the suggestions, and to a few others who made other improvements to the page. It's now got a wider selection of "reliable" (sometimes defunct) sources per WP:VG/RS (EGM, OPM, AllGame, and GameSpot) per WP:VG/RS, plus the Tampa Tribune article, so I resubmitted. Please LMK if you'd like to see anything else. AlcibiadesDX (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Computer Games Magazine is reliable. You can use it too :) Timur9008 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOYEAR

I think policy leans more towards the oppose side because NOYEAR favors "events that are unlikely to recur": That section is about events involving individual people such as rescues, assassinations, kidnappings, deaths, etc. Raskuly 🐰 00:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure where it says that. The page is about "events and incidents". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Events can involve people, like Assassination of Shinzo Abe or Disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. The line "events that are unlikely to recur" in WP:NOYEAR about a year being unnecessary specifically uses examples of those types of events. Raskuly 🐰 01:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Whether it "specifically uses examples" does not mean it only applies to those types of events. It is just more obvious that events involving deaths of individuals are not going to recur. However, I also believe there are events NOT involving individual people that are equally unlikely to recur. If you really disagree with this, I think Village Pump or something is a better place to clarify the policy, I am just interpreting it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it is equally unlikely for there to be another notable shooting in Thousand Oaks, California, as another rescue of a Jessica McClure? Raskuly 🐰 06:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are trying to argue this, as even if I struck that sentence entirely, it would not change the result whatsoever. Merely a personal observation on my part. If you are trying to suggest that if I agreed with you it would change the outcome, that is not the case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No, I just found the no consensus for a move using the argument you used baffling. I'm very aware that the requested move discussion is over and its outcome cannot be changed in retrospect unless it were improperly closed, which it wasn't. Raskuly 🐰 07:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Nahida

I've been reconsidering whether Nahida is notable or not, and I remembered you were the one who nominated her for deletion last year. I've drafted a new reception section over at User:Gommeh/sandbox and am now pretty confident that she easily passes GNG. Let me know what you think! Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 00:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I still can't see it, so please tell me the WP:THREE best sources right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.youxituoluo.com/529980.html

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/the-top-5-most-badass-moments-in-genshin-impact-in-2022-113125887.html

https://news.yxrb.net/202209/27230918.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20221117023636/https://youxiputao.com/article/24272

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nahida-character-teaser-genshin-impacts-saddest-140613742.html

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/greater-lord-rukkhadevata-king-deshret-genshin-impact-most-tragic-045917963.html

These are the sources I was able to get the most from. Plus, with a reception size this big, I find it hard to say that a character doesn't meet GNG based on the sheer amount of content. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 01:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "amount of content" meaning something is notable. If all or most coverage is trivial, it is not notable. Otherwise basically every Marvel superhero would be notable as well as other pop culture subjects covered by content farms.

Another thing is to make sure they are from different sources. One source with 4 articles only counts as one source for GNG.

Based on this, I would definitively say she is still not notable and I would AfD the article again if it ever went into mainspace. There is significant coverage from Yahoo but that just isn't sufficient. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

We also have all the YXRB and Youxi Putao articles. The consensus reached around YXRB was that they are situationally reliable, but it did not mention notability at all. I've used them to demonstrate notability before with no issues. Youxi Putao is considered reliable as well, so I think I have WP:THREE among Yahoo, YXRB and Youxi Putao. Similar to what @SuperGrey said at this comment at the AFD last year, I believe the Youxi Tuoluo source focuses enough on Nahida's character development to provide SIGCOV as well. And I highly disagree that this coverage is trivial in nature; if it were, I'd have already slimmed it down myself. While no amount of content makes an article automatically pass GNG, the WPVG project mainly looks at reception to determine character notability, and to call a character who has had 30,000 bytes worth of reception from reliable sources on her

1. appearance
2. story
3. characterization
4. promotion/trailers
5. and gameplay

not notable in the slightest just sounds... off to me. On the contrary, last time around you were definitely correct in saying the sources did not prove notability when you nominated her for AFD last year, as the reception section barely discussed her character or story (the main contributors to notability for video game characters), let alone really anything else besides her gameplay.

Given that, I think the question isn't whether there is any significant coverage, but whether this coverage is being interpreted as sufficient. From my perspective, there is consistent, non-trivial discussion of Nahida across multiple independent sources, particularly regarding her characterization and narrative role.

TLDR: the reception section is much bigger and much more in depth than it was last time around, so I think I have proven GNG.Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 04:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Surely you are aware that size of the reception section has literally zero bearing on notability. It's entirely based on the sources themselves, not anything within the article. See WP:AKON. For that reason, I still stand by my assessment. I'm not the be all end all of notability, of course, but if I feel that way, others probably will too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with your AKON argument, and I wasn't suggesting that section size itself determines notability. I mentioned it more as an indicator of how much sourced commentary there is, rather than as a factor in notability itself. The way I see it, a similar line of reasoning was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aventurine (Honkai: Star Rail), which was deemed to be clearly notable.

In this case, several sources go beyond brief or incidental mention and instead provide sustained discussion of Nahida's characterization and identity in the game's narrative. For instance, the Automaton article frames her story around the question of if a god is unfit to rule, and discusses her development as a newly-born deity who learns by relying on others' wisdom. That's not a simple summary, rather it is a thematic interpretation of her role in the game's plot. Similarly, the Youxi Tuoluo coverage discusses her characterization in terms of internal conflict (that is, how she doubts her qualifications as Archon), her growth as the story develops, and how her personality and development resonated with players. That reads as a multi-paragraph, in-depth analysis of her character rather than just a passing mention.

Across the sources cited, there's consistent discussion of her themes, character arc, and narrative impact in detail. Given that, it seems to me that they are discussing Nahida in a substantive way, rather than at a surface level.

Based on the sustained discussion of her characterization, narrative role, and thematic significance across multiple sources, I think the SIGCOV threshold is met here; if you disagree, I'd be interested in which specific aspects of the coverage you believe fall short. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 16:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I already said that the problem is that most of the sources are mostly unrelated to the character and trivially mention her, in other words exactly the same as last time. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but it will be your own credibility called into question if it gets merged again. I fully admit there is a chance I may be wrong, but Adventurine got a sizable profile in Siliconera, a reliable source, and got non-trivial coverage in 3DM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:26, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it helps, I can put this through AFC instead; that way, at least another user can take a look at it and offer their input on whether or not the sources used address her in enough detail. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 17:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, AfC commonly approves articles that look decently notable without closer inspection. It's more of a way to prevent blatantly non-notable articles from being approved. So, while you could do that, it may still not mean the article is invulnerable to being redirected.

If you ask me I would just save the draft offline and work on other stuff, especially since she is already in the character list, there is no rush and all of her information can be placed there for now, if the character is featured again and has another burst of notability, you'd have a hugely stronger argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I'll think on it a bit more, and maybe ask other editors what they think as well. I still think the current sources provide substantial coverage, but I get the concern that others might read them differently. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 18:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For Black Bird (video game). ~ A412 talk! 16:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Category:Fictional haunted houses has been nominated for merging

Category:Fictional haunted houses has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2026 May#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)