Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pat the Bunny/1

Pat the Bunny

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist: Article was delisted in good faith by nominator at time of nomination; GAR process was not needed. Article has several obvious deficiencies including, among others, failure to adequately describe topic (noted by nominator), questionable sources (e.g. commercial sites to support non-trivial information/data), questionable broadness (much more could be touched upon when discussing a "perennial best-seller" published almost 70 years ago), etc.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 23:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm de-listing this article, as I don't think it passes criterion 3 (breadth) of the Good Article criteria. I realize it may be difficult to write a substantial article about a book of this kind, but there must be more to say about something that has sold so consistently for so long. If nothing else, I find myself unable even to visualize the book itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee. De-listing Pat the Bunny is like shooting Bambi's mother.
 * Sadly enough, I must agree that the article comes up short for criterion 3. Additionally, the lead discusses material which doesn't appear in the body of the article. Majoreditor (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse Delist and recommend speedy close. Majoreditor (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)