Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Spooks (series 7)/archive1

Spooks (series 7)

6 articles

I am nominating this for a Good Topic because I believe it is worthy for inclusion. I have worked on it for about a month or so and the GANs went by quickly thanks to the backlog elimination drive. -- Matthew RD 16:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these five episodes more notable than the other three? Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because I can't find anything notable (GA worthy) for the other three, so I find it pointless to create articles on them. I thought that just because only a handful of articles exist, like Supernatural (season 1), it shouldn't fail. -- Matthew RD 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a bit weird that 5 of the 8 are notable and not the others. Most of the other examples have 2 or 3 episodes out of something like 10. Over half being notable is a bit towards all of them being notable. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Having reviewed several of the above episodes, I don't see a problem with having an incomplete season as a featured topic (so long as the remaining episodes remain redirects). However, it would be nice for those 3 remaining episodes to be expanded into good articles eventually. As the above articles are well-written and interesting to read (considering I've never watched the show), I'll give it my support. Ruby2010 talk 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced that a season can have 5 notable episodes, and 3 non-notable ones. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I convince you? Should I add production and reception sections on the three missing episodes on the series talk page to show you how little there is? I said before, the other are not notable because there I could find barely anything on the other three, mabe the odd reviews, but not nearly enough production. For example, for "A Chance for Peace", the only production I could find is the writing anf directing credits, and mention the return of a character from the third series. It's also the only episode in the series not to have a review from TV Scoop(No review marked "TV Review: Spooks, BBC One, Monday 10 November, 9pm"), so reception section is also very limited. That's it. Is that enough to warrant a good article? No. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I say again, there are episodes that are non-notable. -- Matthew RD 13:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am convinced. Z gin der 2011-04-23T21:40Z (UTC)
There's only two supports and one oppose. I really would like there to be more comments made before I made a decision. GamerPro64 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps would you post a comment? -- Matthew RD 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support precedent is clearly set at Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1) (and again at FTRC) and Supernatural (season 2) that not every episode must have an article. Also, 1d appears to me to mean not that the articles don't exist but that the topic would not cover those, if for example there were a stub episode article that would be ignored for this FTC, which is not the case here. (Note: I was contacted by the nominator for my input). _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote as good topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]