Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Balthier/1

Balthier

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: Nominator withdrew, closing as Keep Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article overrelies mostly on passing mentions about game reviews about him and Fran. The article needed some expansion, especially at reception as it also needed to be rewritten. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This may end up being moot if the AfD results in a merge. But assuming the article is kept, it absolutely needs to go through the GA process again. There is no way its current state represents the supposed notability people claim it has. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is making a notability argument for delisting but notability is explicitly not a GA criterion. Article meets the six GA criteria: it is well-written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. This is forum shopping for an AFD that isn't going your way. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we definitely know Notability isn't an issue now after the afd arguments (same argument at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Terra Branford/1), but some ir most of the sources are just passing mentions from the game reviews. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you know notability isn't an issue, then you should say so at the AFD you started. Where else would you find reception of a video game character? Demanding multiple published books about a video game character seems an impossibly high bar. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~If the character lacks scholarly books then it fails on GA criteria "broad on its coverage". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, it does not fail broadness by not having scholarly books. That is an impossible criterion for many articles. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess youre right, but the article could stay as fragile like that. Balthier's probably using all those sources from the game reviews what it can. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do think this character doesn't quite meet notability standards, within what we have to work with for now it does meet GAR standards, so @Axem Titanium: is right in that regard. It's a different case than say Kefka or Terra, where with those weak/bad sources are being used, and we're aware of not only good sources existing but broader coverage. Balthier's used everything available to him, and I think out of the ongoing Square Enix GARs, it's fine to keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw seems like the consensus here make sense. Because of that, I'm withdrawing this GAR. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:41, 14 June 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.