Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tyrant (Resident Evil)/1

Tyrant (Resident Evil) edit

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 • Evil)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted with significant problems. Leaving it to Zxcvbnm and GlatorNator to decide whether it should go to AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been neglected for decades. Most of it written for Mr. X only (especially at reception sec) and the reception section is full of listicles only with short development/concept creation section with no additional information whatsoever. GlatorNator (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - I reviewed this over a decade ago and am perfectly fine seeing this delisted. GamerPro64 16:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could the article possibly be merged from the franchise article? Most of the sources are coming from X and not the tyrant species. GlatorNator (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Appears to be a lot of WP:SYNTH involved here. Nemesis and Mr. X are more notable as individual characters than the "Tyrant" is as a whole, and most of the sources talk about the characters individually. I'm not even sure if anything from here can be merged, it might need to just be deleted wholesale for failing WP:GNG. I should add that it doesn't technically fail the WP:GA criteria; an article can be non-notable and still pass, but WP:IAR because it would almost certainly fail a Good Article check in the modern day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you feel that the article should be deleted then maybe an AFD should be opened. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that is the right move, possibly after this GAR is closed, whatever happens. I think GlatorNator's real issue is with whether this article passes WP:GNG. (Mistake is easy to make, I recently made a similar error myself). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. But, do you think Mr. X should have its own article and can be notable? GlatorNator (talk) 11:48, 26 March 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.