Hello, just adding my 2 cents here, the article looks good; aside from my small concern regarding over quoting, as for notability it looks to be notable to me, but I don’t know.
Geardona (
talk to me?)
02:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"The article looks good" I mean yeah, but I am very concerned that this user has an afc right but can't scrutinize each source properly; even some admin knows that the character isn't notable [
[1]. The draft makes it obvious that the article doesn't contain any
WP:SIGCOV. The only good sources were this
[2] but isn't sigcov at all as it doesn't really discuss the character, and this
[3] but has less coverage than Kotaku. Anyway, still failing
WP:GNG and the article was just recently merged from the AFD this year; so it is still very recent..
GreenishPickle! (
🔔)
03:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I said the article, not the sources. Haven’t checked those yet, was going to do that later in my review; as for the AFD thing, if I had accepted, I would have to move over a redirect with history. Something I cannot do. I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that my review was fully done. Most everything I have said is from a glance.
Geardona (
talk to me?)
05:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Question/Comment what are we supposed to do here? You've added to what was discussed at AfD. You don't need to go through either us (DRV) or AFC: if you've improved the article, un-redirect it, incorporate the improvements such that the former criticisms don't apply, and let anyone who objects re-AfD it. Mind you, this only works if you understand notability and can readily incorporate it into your improved version. In general, DRV is for when someone thinks the decision was wrong and wants to contest it on the basis of the evidence available at the time. This doesn't look like that.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Having looked at the changes, there's a ton of added material, including reception sections. Kotaku is going to be an OK RS for fictional characters like this per my perusal of the RSN archives.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
There's nothing to do here. This was submitted and declined at AfC. The decline reason was about a potential copyright issue - you could just remove the block quote and accept, but since there was a previous AfD we need to make sure that whatever's being submitted is substantially different. This is so far out of my area of expertise I'm not sure which sources in the AfC are GNG notable so I can't make any other recommendation as to what to do here, sorry.
SportingFlyerT·C20:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. I read
WP:LONGQUOTE and I don't see that there's a copyright problem with a single block quote like that in an article of that size. It may be a stylistic issue, but not something that's going to get Wikipedia in trouble... again, as I see it.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment - The draft is almost the same as the deleted/merged article. If we are being asked to review whether the draft is an improvement over the deleted article, the differences are insignificant.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
this is not substantially identical. It's questionably better, clearly clears the G4 bar, clearly good faith, and obviously was declined at AfC once so far. Exactly the sort of iffy but earnest effort that should be coached and supported or gently corrected, not picked to pieces at DRV.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply