Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Goomba/Archive 1

< Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates | Goomba

Goomba

edit
Article is still a featured article.

this is featured? the article has 2 so-called "references", which are merely promotional product-info distributed by nintendo themselves. full of uncited assertions (even on the first line - "possibly meaning people" - why possibly?! ). fairuse images without rationale. weasel words abound. extremely non-comprehensive, with no discussion of authorship: why were they created, why did the games developers make the decisions about these things that they did? no assertion of significance or notability at all either, so as it stands just fancruft (and there are better fancruft articles out there). fails FAC2, FAC1, FAC4. Zzzzz 16:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • remove per nom Zzzzz 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • remove This article has the same objections I have over Bulbasaur. If you object here, please take a look at bulbasaur FARC, thx. Temporary account 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Remove. As much as I like FAs on video games, this just doesn;t meet our standards. RyanGerbil10 20:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I have reconsidered my vote. At first, I had thought that there should be a reference for the Goomba's involvement in each game, until I realized I owned many of the instruction manuals for these games, so I read them. In some of them, Goombas were not mentioned at all, and in others, the same information was repeated many times. There is no need to have more than two references if everything is adequately explained by them. However, this article should watch its back, it needs footnotes and I think that it's only a matter of time before footnotes, just like references, become a grounds for near-automatic removal. RyanGerbil10 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish this would have gone to FAR first to allow members of the CVG WikiProject a chance to improve the article before requesting its removal. Adding fair use rationale and removing weasel words is fairly easily done, at least. You have valid points, but I disagree with a few:
    • "possibly meaning people" - why possibly?! bō can have several different meanings, "people" is the most likely.
    • no assertion of significance or notability - The article states that the Goomba is the most common enemy in the Mario series, and the first enemy to appear in Super Mario Bros. This is sufficient for me, do you disagree?
    • the article has 2 so-called "references", which are merely promotional product-info - Yes, the instruction manuals are distributed by Nintendo, but they are not promotional, since they are packaged with the game. If that was Nintendo's idea of promotion they'd be out of business. The manual for SMB tells you what Goombas are and that they "betrayed the Mushroom Kingdom". You will certainly agree that this bit should appear in the article. As for its referencing, any non-game or non-instruction manual source cited would have to in turn reference the manual. The manual is simply the best reference for this, it practically borders on primary material.
Pagrashtak 22:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added fair use rationale to all images and rewrote the captions. The article should no longer fail FAC4. Pagrashtak 22:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The references are obviously from the game themselves, maybe this should be mentioned, but it's easily fixable. We have Fair Use Rationale on the images, and this is a pretty complete article on the lowly Mario monster. - Hahnchen 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-established and the writing is fantastic. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've gone and fixed a bunch of style errors, the article looks fine to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After looking it over, I have decided to vote keep. The nature of the subject necessitates that games and game manuals be used as sources. As goombas are not the star of any Mario games, there are simply no sources where Shigeru Miyamoto says "A goomba is a traitor to the mushroom kingdom." The format of some of the sources could be improved, but that alone is not grounds for de-featuring. --Danaman5 01:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable subject, in my opinion; if it isn't, then we'd have to get rid of every article about every video game on Wikipedia. As for the lack of sources, all of the video games in which Goombas appear could be cited as sources (which, technically, they are) if people weren't so stringent about things being written down on paper. The article is well-written, describes the various incarnations and the evolution of Goombas in good detail, it isn't overlong, and if it wasn't already a featured article, I would nominate it to be one. The Disco King 18:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see that there are sufficient inadequacies with this article to warrant de-featuring. This is a good article related to a notable subject; the Mario series of games is known everywhere, and the most common enemy to feature surely is notable. The article also seems pretty comprehensive to me. Lewis 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Goomba/Archive_1&oldid=1110778566"