Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Vortigaunt/1

Vortigaunt

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Vortigaunt/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The article on Vortigaunts seriously needs a reassessment of its Good Article status, as it is not up to current standards. The primary issue is that it fails WP:GNG, with a threadbare "Reception" section that pulls entirely from reviews of the game that do not indicate WP:SIGCOV. A large chunk of the article is primary sourced. If Vortigaunts are indeed notable, the article needs significant improvement to further expand the context of why, but I doubt that it would pass a Good Article Nomination with how it is now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I realized that, ironically, I was the one who initially reviewed the article in 2009. However, notability criteria were a lot more lenient around that time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think a merge discussion is a better venue to discuss notability or WP:GNG. GAR should focus on the GA criteria, which does not really have a part about notability. OceanHok (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There was already a merge discussion, but they said that it should not be merged on account of it being a Good Article. Hence I came over here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with OceanHok—this needs an advertised merger discussion, not a GAR. The GA criteria do not cover notability and both GAs and FAs are indeed redirected/merged regularly without being delisted as GAs first. Restart that discussion and let WT:VG know. czar  05:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the reception section, the character design section is exclusively not cited to primary sources. I believe this doesn't meet good article criteria for a few reasons, but it seems to meet notability.
 * The main issue is that the appearance in other media section cites primary sources of fan material instead of sources discussing the use of Vortigaunts in fan media, and that there's no page numbers for print sources. The part about reviews of the plush toy appears to summarize multiple reviews, but it only references one. This should be delisted in it's current state, but I would oppose a merge based on GNG solely. I think splitting the character design part of this article into several development sections for each individual game would be a net loss for readers. RoseCherry64 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support the article being delisted as a GA. As for whether it should stay on mainspace, I opened, and then closed, a merge discussion a while back, which resulted in no consensus to support the article being removed from mainspace and redirected somewhere else. I agree with other editors that a GA reassessment is not the appropriate avenue to determine and discuss a topic's notability. Haleth (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, but reopen the merge discussion emphasisng (by pointing here if necessary or I could give a few links to discussions on the WT:GAN page) that being a Good Article is not blanket protection against merging or even deleting an article. It is probably a fair candidate for AFD as it lacks significant coverage. As notability is not a GA requirement and primary sources are allowed this is not an issue as far as this GAR goes. I removed the appearance in other media section as I agree with the points raised above and it is not critical to the article. In fact despite its length it could quite easily be merged if other sections are also trimmed or cut. Aircorn (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist The reception section is too brief, and the piece was primarily used as a primary source. Since three other editors agreed to delist the article above, I'm confident that delisting it is the proper procedure. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist: Hardly adequate coverage as far as cultural impact goes, and I agree that this could very well be merged into another article with scant consequence. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)