Template:Did you know nominations/Tenable
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tenable
[edit]- ... that Tenable is "linguistic nonsense"?
- Reviewed: Atari CX40 joystick
- Comment: At the time of writing, Tenable is a soft redirect to Wiktionary, and I'm waiting for Tenable (game show) to be moved over.
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC).
Barely long enough, new enough, however the bit on "linguistic nonsense" is not directly cited and you have a redundant "Further Reading" section. But the bigger problem is that I find this article's claim to notability flimsy at best -- might it even survive an AfD the way things are now? Almost everything is cited by a primary (and offline) source, and there's only a single third-party source. Much more work needed. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the sourcing, and all game shows that have gone out on a national network are notable. How else would you arrange the Wiktionary link?--Launchballer 14:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did not notice that -- and it's nevertheless redundant. There's absolutely no need to link the wiktionary link for "tenable" to the Tenable game show article! It's like linking the "taboo" wiktionary link to the "Taboo" film or card game article... Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gone it is then. Anything else?--Launchballer 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I still find it iffy, especially since it just started airing. Any chance to put this on hold? Per WP:TVSHOW, generally such shows are notable but there still must be sufficient third-party coverage. I am unable to find it here. Things still remain to be seen. Cheers Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Gone it is then. Anything else?--Launchballer 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did not notice that -- and it's nevertheless redundant. There's absolutely no need to link the wiktionary link for "tenable" to the Tenable game show article! It's like linking the "taboo" wiktionary link to the "Taboo" film or card game article... Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the sourcing, and all game shows that have gone out on a national network are notable. How else would you arrange the Wiktionary link?--Launchballer 14:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- After careful consideration I am giving this a pass in good faith (offline primary source & granting that there is sufficient third-party coverage)
Cheers! Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC) 
I respectfully disagree with Kingoflettuce. The hook as written goes against MOS:ITALICS (whether "Tenable" refers to the programme or the word, it should be italicised) and the current discussion of the word's etymology in the article is incredibly difficult to understand; without some context on the programme's name being a pun between ten and tenable (and some explanation of why that pun works) the quote doesn't tell a reader much. I also fear that the article does not sufficiently establish notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yah, not so concerned about the hook (small stuff, and it is after all directly cited; I thought perhaps that might prompt readers to actually find out how the pun works via the article) as I am the notability of the article (my initial concern). However, based on my own cursory search and the sources presented in the article as it is now, I felt that it adequately passed N:TVSHOW. But I really wouldn't know as well, and certainly wouldn't mind standing corrected. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- After subsequent edits by other editors, the article now has no inline source citations and is ineligible for DYK in its current form. Launchballer, this will need quite a bit of work to be in DYK-ready shape; please remember that a number of previous DYK reviews have deprecated the use of UKGameshows.com as a source. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that "if there were a Top Ten for vanity, Warwick [Davis] would be right up there"?--Launchballer 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is an odd Easter egg of a link (and not a bold one either); I'm also wondering about the BLP aspects of it, it being one reviewer's opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that "if there were a Top Ten for vanity, Warwick [Davis] would be right up there"?--Launchballer 16:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Article remains insufficiently sourced. It currently provides three cites in total, two to the television company that airs it (not independent, thus not counting towards notability), and one to the Daily Mail (a source widely regarded as unreliable). Both hooks are unacceptable, the original because the pun is not discussed in the article, let alone cited, and the latest for all the reasons stated by BlueMoonset, it is an Easter egg and unduly negative, thus failing criterion 4a. SpinningSpark 18:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
