Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

This article was removed as a featured article because of purported fraud on the part of Hollow Wilerding. I am resubmitting it as a featured article because I believe (as do many of those who voted for its removal) that it is FA quality; the reason for its demotion was entirely due to fraud. You can find the peer review here and the previous FAC here. The archive of the FARC is here — Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and support. — Cuivienen 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As revolted as I was about the fraud over the last FAC, I think this article is worthy of FA status. Well-written, good screenshots with good copyright statuses, an excellent all-round description of the game and everything around it. Well referenced too. Let's not let despicable sockpuppeting defeat an outstanding article. Batmanand 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a cruftist, I'd like to see more detail, but I can live with this. Support. Everyking 22:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I LOVE this game. And incidentally, I started to play it the other day once again. But that all is by no means why I'm supporting this article. Comprehensive, well-written, factually accurate and the images have acceptable copyright stati (Latin plural). Maybe Image:ZeldaMMbox.jpg could do with a little bit of a fair use rationale, but it's passable. Great work.Soothing R 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful article, well referenced. This is the sort of article which gives fancruft a good name. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, well done, now I'm totally conflicted. This is undoubtedly a fine article about a piece of gaming emphemera that I recall quite vividly, but... the commercial nature of the subject matter remains. This is not the fault of the writers: their NPOV is spot on. However, the LoZ franchise is a contemporary, worldwide recognised brand name, and as such, by flagging up this article, we may be validating more than just a historical curio in that it can be misconstued as brand placement. By pushing these types of entry towards the front page (and yes I know that it is never inevitable, but certainly FA is a requirement for a front pager), we really do open the project up to potential abuse, the nature of which is very difficult to determine from legitimate entries. --HasBeen 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with HasBeen. I think there are legit quesitons about Wiki featuring a currently avaialable commerical product. Rlevse 14:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the legit questions? Does it promote something people profit off? Sure, but so do a whole host of other FAs -- to some extent, any article could theoretically lead to more interest in the subject, and therefore increased sales of related books or other material. Why should this have anything to do with FA status? (I'm aware of the argument that putting this on the main page could look like advertising. I find this argument completely unconvincing, and it is, in any case, irrelevant here, since it's a long-standing principle that every article is FAable, even if it would be inappropriate for the main page) I haven't looked at the article in question, but what is the harm associated with a good, unbiased article on a branded topic? Wikipedia could do far worse than contain neutral, accurate and comprehensive information on corporations and their products -- as a matter of fact, that would make Wikipedia a uniquely useful resource. Tuf-Kat 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]