Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Vivian (Paper Mario)/1

Vivian (Paper Mario)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Vivian_(Paper_Mario)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept This proces is for assessing whether an article meets the criteria for a Good Article. Notability is not part of the criteria. There is WP:AFD for that or a merge could be conducted. Likewise the status of this article should not play a role in those two processes (i.e Keep because it is a GA are not valid !vote.) AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

While discussing notability of Mr. Game and Watch, I used Vivian as an example of what defines a fictional character as notable. Bringing this up, however, it got a couple of people to think whether or not Vivian is notable. Not in a "delete the article" way, but rather "re-asses and probably C-class" way.

The following discussion comes from the Wikiproject Video Games talk page.

"=== Mr. Game and Watch and Notability (cont.) === So we've agreed (me too, don't worry) that Mr. Game and Watch is not notable enough for an individual article. But what about other fictional characters of the same premise? One of the best pieces of notability for him was the racial criticism, which a couple of you guys think is worthy being important to mention.  Exhibit A: Vivian.  So you wouldn't think an ally is notable enough for a second article, but due to the LGBT+ representation of her (she's transgender), its got an article (good job vivian, now olivia).  What is the difference between these two?  Mr. Game and Watch:  A (kinda) notable character who's gotten criticism for racial stereotypes and existing in Smash Bros. in general.  Vivian: A (kinda) notable character who's gotten praise from the LGBT community.  She's also good article status, so what's the exact definition for fictional characters? Le Panini  (Talk tome?)  18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no exact definition or line in the sand Panini. Generally, the more significant coverage a character has received, and the more depth and breadth in that coverage, you can make a better case for a standalone article. Looking at the two articles, Vivian has received a healthy amount of critical discussion from various journalists saying different things, and it would be undue to keep all that at Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. I'm not seeing this problem on the G&W page. TarkusAB talk / contrib 19:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the section in G&W was unwieldy, but the additional content you removed kept it to a minimum. Thanks for your opinion!  It would be weird if she had a big section on TTYD, even though she's just an ally.


 * I would like to make a comment about the game-guidy stuff that was cut. The stuff wasn't there to necessarily show his moveset, it was there to show the references to other games in his fighting style.  Can we add something along the lines of "His moveset correlates to Game & Watch titles, such as (insert some example).   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes if you can find a source that says so. (FYI, an ally is someone that supports LGBTQ rights, not someone that identifies as such) TarkusAB talk / contrib 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think he was referring to Vivian being an ally to Mario in the game. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! Now I feel silly. TarkusAB talk / contrib 22:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a rule/line in the sand: If the topic's article depends upon "Top X" listicles, the subject matter is likely best covered within an existing article. If you have to cobble together brief mentions from sources, its Reception section will verge on trivia because the topic is on the outer cusp of independent notability. The Vivian article exemplifies this and would be a strong candidate for merger. czar  02:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While I’m not particularly pushing of a merge of the Vivian article, I do wholeheartedly agree that it’s not exactly a “home run” when it comes to demonstrating notability. It’s more of a “C+” case or something. There’s much better examples out there. I’d look to WP:GA/WP:FA articles, or even ones that have survived AFD or merger discussions. Sergecross73   msg me  02:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think an article like Vivian is questionable why its good article status, but its still fine nonetheless. Unless someone is willing to re-evaluate, its a good article.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  10:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely think it needs a WP:GAR. Its notability is entirely dependent on listicles, which is a red flag in my book. I try to find at least a couple articles directly about the subject before making any fictional character/item article and Vivian doesn't seem to have any of that, only trivial mentions. It's unclear if it's standalone notable at all, but at most it's C class as Sergecross stated.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then, should we begin Re-assessment, or is this conversation just a thought? If anything, it should be a community re-assessment, as we have our opinions and the contributors to the article have theirs.  I don't think I can list it, as I'm not a main editor on the article.   I want to hear what Tarkus thinks if he stops by.  He was the original reviewer, after all.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  11:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So I have taken another look at Vivian and well there are some listicles, there are some actual articles about the character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I made this list of references, for, well, reference.

Articles that are lists - (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 13, possible 16, but I can't access it. 8 out of 16/50 %)

Articles with small mentions of the character - (9, 14, 15, possible 16, but I can't access it. 4 out of 16/25%)

Articles with Trivial mentions/comes from the game itself - (7, 8. 2 out of 16/12.5%)

Le Panini  (Talk tome?)  13:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)"

The reason I'm creating this page is for these users to state a fleshed out opinion on the re-assessing of this article. Also, main contributors that oppose of this re-assessment to state their case as well.

Survey

 * Delist. The article doesn't seem to represent Good article status of notability.  The majority of the sources come from top 10 themed lists (Our favorite LGBTQ+ characters in games, 15 classic Nintendo games that had to be censored, etc.), as well as simply trivial mentions in others (Lets talk about birdo, why LGBT video game databases matter).  While these count as notability, it isn't a perfect example of what a good article is.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  15:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist. The article seems to be struggling with notability of Vivian as a whole character, and the notability largely hinges on a single aspect of the character that was controversial, her trans nature or censorship thereof. This same situation is why I thought Sorceress (Dragon's Crown) was also unsuitable for an article. While it can certainly be part of how the character was received, I'm not sure that alone is sufficient to mark a notable character. As said above, most of the sources are listicles or small-trivial mentions. It lacks any indepth explanations of the character. I'm not even sure the article is independently notable at all, but I think that at it's a given that it doesn't reach GA standards due to the quality of sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I think it would make sense if the article was merged, I don't know where in the Paper Mario articles her section would go, which is why I say we keep it, but just not good article status.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  16:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Characters in the Mario franchise I'm guessing? Either that or Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, but it might be overkill for that section.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. I do not really agree with that at all, that it lacks "indepth explanations." Two authors go in depth into her physical design and how they enhance her femininity (both in mannerisms and clothing); another author discusses how her role in the Shadow Sirens made an impact due to her being a younger sibling herself; a source discussing how Vivian's role in the game would make her relatable to children (these latter two having nothing to do with her being transgender); an author discussing how her role could help people better understand LGBT people. I do not agree that the discussion of her character is limited to her role in the game. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment., I actually do agree that she has definitely gotten good reception, and expands outside of just being an ally in the game.  However, I still believe that her reception is really all that comes with her.  While the citations talk about her appearance, it comes close to just being a trivial explanation on who she is.  If a source talks about her appearance, it doesn't necessarily means it calls for a bullet point, like on the back of a video game box.
 * These sources talk about her appearance
 * This one source talks about how she appeals to children
 * These sources talk about her LGBT representation in video games
 * 1. The three sources that talk about her appearance, don't, actually, talk about her appearance...
 * The only point these three articles really bring up is how she is transgender and how it was change in North America. (Except for source 3, but it only really describes her sisters, not her appearance.)
 * 2. This source talks about how she is a good rep for children (alongside reps from the other allies) and is a good trivial mention of the character. Key word trivial mention; key word alongside reps from the other allies.
 * This source is a listicle in a listicle. Its a list of 6 reasons why they should play the game, Nd number 6 is a list of the morals from the allies.  She, alongside the other allies in this list list, are mere trivia philosophies.
 * 3. The main reason which this character is known is for her LGBT representation. However, I believe this could be simply a good hearty paragraph in TTYD.  It makes up what seems to be 60% of the  article as a whole.
 * While I'm all for just de-listing this article to C class, I wouldn't go against merging, as CZAR notes. The article can stay, I just don't believe its a good representation of notability and should be de-listed as so.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources explicitly relate to her appearance, discussing her manner of clothing, how she expresses her femininity, these are explicit examples of discussing her appearance and how it defines her character, particularly in relation to her sisters. I'm not at all understanding why you think it does not relate to her appearance. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If its explicit, then there is something that I"m missing. Can you quote the articles that directly state her appearance/clothing?  Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  02:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 13th source discusses Vivian's physical, feminine mannerisms, what they reflect, and her hat. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's what confused me. The section that talks about her appearance, are cited to 1, 2, and 3, which don't really go over her appearance, rather her transgender relationship with her sisters.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This source is a listicle in a listicle. Its a list of 6 reasons why they should play the game, Nd number 6 is a list of the morals from the allies.  She, alongside the other allies in this list list, are mere trivia philosophies.
 * 3. The main reason which this character is known is for her LGBT representation. However, I believe this could be simply a good hearty paragraph in TTYD.  It makes up what seems to be 60% of the  article as a whole.
 * While I'm all for just de-listing this article to C class, I wouldn't go against merging, as CZAR notes. The article can stay, I just don't believe its a good representation of notability and should be de-listed as so.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  02:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources explicitly relate to her appearance, discussing her manner of clothing, how she expresses her femininity, these are explicit examples of discussing her appearance and how it defines her character, particularly in relation to her sisters. I'm not at all understanding why you think it does not relate to her appearance. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If its explicit, then there is something that I"m missing. Can you quote the articles that directly state her appearance/clothing?  Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  02:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 13th source discusses Vivian's physical, feminine mannerisms, what they reflect, and her hat. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's what confused me. The section that talks about her appearance, are cited to 1, 2, and 3, which don't really go over her appearance, rather her transgender relationship with her sisters.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The 13th source discusses Vivian's physical, feminine mannerisms, what they reflect, and her hat. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's what confused me. The section that talks about her appearance, are cited to 1, 2, and 3, which don't really go over her appearance, rather her transgender relationship with her sisters.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  17:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge, rather than re-assess. Notability is separate from the GA criteria so unless the argument is about missing breadth or something, it's possible for this to be a GA version of a topic that isn't independently notable for Wikipedia. In any event, you're probably looking to have a merge discussion, not a GA reassessment (the latter is moot in the case of the former).  czar  21:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So your suggestion is that she matches the good article criterion of all sections except notability, and sense it doesn't meet this for article creation either, it should rather be merged. Is this correct?   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  22:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't pass judgment on the GA criteria apart from pointing out that "notability" is not among those criteria. I think it should be merged, but that's a different discussion (WP:PAM), not a GA reassessment. czar  23:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I think I got it. You don't believe it needs a re-assessment, and it should rather be merged.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  01:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist per Le Panini's reasoning. Probably B class at best. My position on the character's notability on the other hand, is that GNG is satisfied per Bryn's reasoning as her significance is not limited to her Paper Mario debut. Haleth (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is not part of GA - this thread is started based on incorrect assumptions about the process. If you want to go ahead with this process, you need to bring up (actionable) concerns based on the GA criteria. (And if you think this should be merged, then this specific process is a waste of time anyway)--AlexandraIDV 04:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – I find it odd that this article was put up for community reassessment without prior notification on the talk page. I would want to give editors the chance to make changes to the article if it is believed that it doesn't meet Good Article criteria. Moreover, total number of sources/notability is not covered in the six Good Article criteria. If people want this article merged or redirected, please create a proper discussion for that. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested of a merge discussion, rather than a GA re-assessment, which is now being reviewed on the talk page. If you have any comment on GA status, please put it here.  If not, I will close this subject in a couple of days, and label it as "Suggested Merge".   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  11:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist - I've complied a list of the sources used in this article, I'm interested if this really does deserve a GA. Using WikiProject Video games/Sources
 * Screen Rant - Listed as inconclusive.
 * LGBTQ Video Game Archive - Status unknown.
 * Nintendojo - Listed as notable.
 * IGN - Listed as notable.
 * Revista Tradumàtica (PDF) - Status unknown.
 * inu651225 (YouTuber with roughly 700 subs) - YouTube is considered as inappropriate to source due to inappropriate content and copyright concerns, unless it's made by reliable sources in its own right.
 * Quote from the game Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door - Listed as reliable.
 * The official Smash website - Typically it's not usually the case to source the official company who created the article in question.
 * Eurogamer - Listed as reliable.
 * Liberty Voice - Status unknown.
 * Inverse - Listed as inconclusive.
 * Paper - Status unknown.
 * Uppsala University (PDF) - Presumably reliable.
 * Springer (Book: Queerness in play) - Presumably reliable.
 * VG247 - Listed as reliable.
 * The Average Gamer - Status unknown.
 * The OutCrowd Magazine - Status unknown.


 * Personally, I don't think this article is worthy of a merger, it's fine staying an article. It's just its rating needs to come into question. Captain  Galaxy  20:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Notability is not a GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to either start a merge discussion on the talk page or put it through AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This has already been made loud and clear. A discussion was started at the talk page.   Le Panini   (Talk tome?)  03:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)