Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Meta Knight/1

Meta Knight edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: This has been open for two weeks. The nominator's primary concern was "a lack of significant coverage" which is not part of the GA criteria. There is a consensus here that the article generally meets the GA criteria and should not be delisted, though the sourcing is not ideal in some places. AfD (or proposing a merge) is the venue for notability concerns, not GAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is no longer up to Good Article standards if it was to begin with. While I am not sure what the standards were 10 years ago, the reviewed version would currently be a quick-fail due to a lack of significant coverage. Reception is almost entirely sourced to trivial lists. Even if its notability can be salvaged, it would need a full reassessment. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So, matters of WP:AFD are not the responsibility of GA Reassessment. If you believe that it lacks WP:SIGCOV and should be deleted, then use that venue. It isn't GA's place to determine if an article warrants its own page and GAs can still be deleted without being delisted (e.g. Daily Dozen Doughnut Company). At worst, some of the chaff could be cut from the reception section, but the sources are WP:RELIABLE and presented in a factual manner that doesn't get to the point of being WP:UNDUE. This is also splitting hairs on what is and isn't trivial coverage.

The WP:TRIVIAL essay specifies that "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention." The lists in question generally present about a paragraph's worth of content in each. It then goes on to say "Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections...", which I believe qualifies here for the lists in question. The Gamespot citations do worry me a bit but that only reflects 2 sources. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it was non-notable from the point it was approved for GA. That would make it violate one of the rules for GA assessments and call into question if it was done properly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what your concerns are then. Are you saying that the article should be deleted, that it fails a GA criteria, or that the original GA review was improper (or a mix of both)? Even if a GA review was done incorrectly, reassessment looks at the current state of the article, and I believe it meets criteria. The original review is littered with citation errors but these seem to have been resolved (or are an artifact of an older citation template). The original reviewer @Morogris and nominator @Gabriel Yuji are both still active, sending a customary ping.

If you're saying it fails a criteria, please specify what it is, because WP:SIGCOV/non-notable topic isn't a GA criteria. We specifically avoid matters of AFD/AFC, hence why they aren't in the criteria. We don't assume every GA is notable, rather WP:GA is unconcerned with notability requirements. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly saying the original review was improper; #3 in the quick fail criteria states, "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid." Even at the time, it needed a notability tag, and therefore was ineligible for review. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Etriusus. If you think the subject is not notable, you should nominate it for deletion (WP:AFD) or for merging (WP:PAM). There's no need to get it delisted at GAR first, and it wouldn't be the first GA-class article about a video game character deleted or merged for lack of notability (see e.g. Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 2#Notability). GAR is more for analyzing the quality of the article's content, rather than the inclusion of the subject itself. Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid rationale has been provided for delisting. Some of the sources could be better, but they do not appear to be unreliable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.