Talk:Chibwedziva

Notability / lack of details
The notability tag has twice been added, and twice removed; on the second occasion the removal was accompanied by a comment (by ) stating that the place in question "clearly" passes the notability criteria. Given that there is no meaningful information in the article to establish this, and the cited reference cannot be verified online, it would be helpful to know what makes this place notable, so that we can avoid further notability tag ping-pong. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, it is notable per WP:GEOLAND. The first few words of it. The sources, which do not have to be online, confirm this. You seem to be confusing article length with the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing anything; I'm saying that there is nothing in the article to inform that judgement. The article says it's a "place" and it has a "secondary school" — which of those, in your view, makes this place not just notable, but clearly notable? And which specific section of WP:GEOLAND is satisfied by this? (I'm looking for something more substantial here than just your opinion.) And as for the offline source, I never said sources have to be online; I said because this one isn't, I couldn't confirm the notability that way either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific section of WP:GEOLAND that is satisfied is, as I already said, the first few words: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". That is a quotation from the guideline, not my opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And where does it say that this place is legally recognised? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the census that I cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see — the offline publication that most of the world cannot access, and therefore cannot verify? Yet you think that it's "clearly" the case, as should have been obvious to everyone. I would have thought that the fact(s) establishing notability could/should be mentioned in the article itself, not just in an offline source. Otherwise this may not be the last time the notability tag is placed on this article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was clear because it was cited in the article. And I'm confused about whether you think sources have to be online or not. You say that you don't, but argue all the time as if you do. Notability doesn't just apply to topics that one editor can personally verify. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)