Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rational Response Squad/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 03:45, 23 February 2007.
Although small in size I assess the size of the article to be relevant and sufficient to the subject itself, does not lack referencing and have an excellent coverage of the subject and all the Point of Views. Lord Metroid 12:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: The article is too short. Sumbit it to PR to get feedback on its expansion. The article is just a month old, and I suggest it wait for another six months as the media picks on the story so that more references are available. Thing like who started it? What is on their agenda? Images/free videos etc can all be added. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Article is very short, possibly borderline stub. I suggest submitting it to its project (project atheism I believe?) for review and revisal. Also use images to help a user understand better. Christophore 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:SNOW. Please see Featured article criteria. Ceoil 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually thought article size was good for the topic the article covered. Lord Metroid 22:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the topic doesn't merit a more substantive overview, as you imply. However, at present the article is well short of FA criteria. Ceoil 22:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: It sounds like it would only benefit in advertising the group, rather than showing a feature-able article. If you go to the Rational Response Squad website, you can see on the front page the abundant advertisement, a notable ad to check out is the person working on his "thesis" asking people to buy books for him (He won't release info on his schooling however). I oppose on a matter of principle, you can see that I've been watching over the article for some time now.GravityExNihilo 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Not comprehensive. Article contains no information about the history of the group or its members. CloudNine 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose, delist. This is a glorified stub, and CTTOI "glorified" is stretching it. WP:SNOW per Ceoil. Daniel Case 18:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for nominating this, obviously I am not well experienced with Featured Articles and I think the debate can be settled with a proposition to delist. Lord Metroid 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Try checking WP:WIAFA if wishing to make future FACs. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.