Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozaic

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mozaic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. BoardGameGeek lists reviews from HALL 9000 and Rainy Day Games but they don't seem like reliable sources. Suggesting a redirect to Mosaic as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mika1h (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have completely rewritten this article and removed the copypaste tag. I was able to find one review on a editorially independent German game review site. There may be more sources out there, especially on European websites and in European magazines. Guinness323 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think H@LL9000 is a reliable source? It seems to be a self-published source. It isn't listed at WP:BGS. I don't see any credentials for the reviewer to qualify as "an established expert on the subject matter": [1]. Even then 1 review isn't enough. For example, I looked at magazine scans at Internet Archive, and found nothing: [2]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete H@LL9000 reviews are user-generated content and the other reference is dead. I tried finding additional coverage on the web, didn't find anything. Even assuming the dead ref is a perfect GNG-quality source (Internet Archive is down again so I can't check), that's not enough to keep. Toadspike [Talk] 09:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No RS found. The "dead ref" (ping Toadspike) is actually a badly formed URL -- it should be [3]. I don't believe that redirection as a WP:ATD is advisable - it would need to have some clear noteworthiness to warrant that, particularly with Mosaic as such a general article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping. Though this might be sigcov, it also looks self-published, and one source is not enough to demonstrate notability. I still support deletion, but we could redirect to Mosaic as a plausible typo. Toadspike [Talk] 15:29, 12 November 2024 (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.