2023 WESPA Championship (WESPAC): The rest of the article is just spun off from primary sources.  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Games ,  and Nevada .  Shellwood ( talk ) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - In addition to Slate, coverage from Australian Broadcasting Corporation [15] , The Guardian (Nigeria) [16] , The Forward [17] .  ~ A412 talk!  22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah I saw those, they aren't SIGCOF about the tournament by any means, but the ABC and Forward pieces could certainly add to David Eldar's notability.  With all due respect, I think we should be more discerning with what exactly constitutes notability and significant coverage...  It was a different story with past events that actually were "World Scrabble Championship"s (TM) ( 2018 for instance), but this one is a far cry from those...  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hm, we're going to have to disagree on both points here.  First, I don't think "officialness" / manufacturer-association of the event, versus those titled "World Scrabble Championship", should make any difference when assessing notability, otherwise we're just introducing editorial bias on what we subjectively find more important.  Second, sure, I'll concede that the Forward piece is primarily about Eldar, not the event, but the first two sources discuss structure, standings, context, and specific plays of the event.  That sounds like coverage of the event to me.  ~ A412 talk!  23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please do not misunderstand what I meant in the latter half of my statement.  I did not mean to imply that being the "official" Worlds automatically makes it notable, but that the previous events that had, in my opinion, much more substantial coverage were incidentally "official" events (but it is easy to see why the BBC and NYT eould be more inclined to run stories about an actual WSC as oppposed to a "WESPAC".) To your second point, I insist that those sources are by no means adequate as far as this event is concerned — you can find similar pieces with such details about other random tournaments, so by your metric we ought to have articles about them too.  But, really, SIGCOV is a higher standard than just that.  If we had a few more articles like the Slate piece, then fine, but we don't.   Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just tell me honestly if you feel the benchmark set out in WP:EVENTS is met: "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time . Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."  I think the answer should be fairly obvious...  Nuff said, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I honestly do.  There are sources across multiple continents (global scope); before, during, and after the tournament (lasting coverage).  While yes, it may not be as notable as the "official" tournament, I think it cleanly passes WP:NEVENT .  I don't think we disagree on policy here, we disagree on whether it's met, so I'm going to disengage here and let others comment.  ~ A412 talk!  19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough, guess we have to agree to disagree.  I consider myself an "inclusionist" but I just don't see it here, sadly KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Considering the WP:EVENTS benchmark that Kingoflettuce cited above, I would be inclined to merge this, and all of the other individual event pages, into two articles: the existing one for World Scrabble Championship and one covering all WESPAC events.  I'd also like to apologize to Kingoflettuce for conflating the two.  I'm new to following the Scrabble tournaments and was trying my best — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElatedCoder ( talk • contribs ) Hey, no worries — it's nothing personal.  I'd like to think that we all edit in good faith and I can see the effort you put in (hence I opened this nom with "unfortunately"...).  And you certainly don't owe me an apology!  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  03:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  Could the nominator move their Merge comment to be close to their nomination statement?  Right now, it looks like a comment from an editor who is new to the discussion.  Also, please be specific about what Merge target article you are proposing, the closer shouldn't have to guess what you mean.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Liz The "Merge" comment was not by me.. .  I see even you got confused.  It was an unsigned comment by the article's creator, and I was merely responding to it.  KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ElatedCoder , question for you above czar 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  A merge target is greatly appreciated.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 02:36, 16 March 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.

Discussion outcome: merge