Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Commissioner's Trophy (MLB)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:26, 23 May 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria. It's another step in my (hopefully coming soon) baseball awards topic (I'm sure you all saw the Silver Slugger lists). I recently expanded this article and added references. I added the list of winners, which is separate and distinct from the list of World Series winners because of the inclusion criteria. Additionally, this is about a specific award rather than simply a list of champions. I realize my edit count on this article is low, but I added all of the references and the entire list of winners, so I think that qualifies me as a major contributor, rather than pure edit count. Questions/comments will be addressed by me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this any different from List of World Series champions#The modern World Series? It looks like the exact same thing except that this is only since the trophy was introduced in 1967. I suggest they be merged. The same info is also at List of World Series winners and List of World Series champions#World Series (modern) appearances by franchise. All three of these lists need to be incorporated together somehow before I can support. Reywas92Talk 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other two lists you mention definitely ought to be merged. This list, however, contains additional information. I ask you: what becomes of a "Baseball awards" topic if there is no article on this trophy? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trophy itself is important, but there's still no need to duplicate the info. You could easily say, "See this article for the list of winners. This specific trophy has been awarded to all winners since 1967" or something to that effect. I do not like redundancy. Reywas92Talk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So is this article a perpetual stub in your eyes? There's very little available information on it besides what's here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessary "a perpetual stub". It can actually be a GA like my article Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy.—Chris! ct 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I've included every piece of information I could find on the topic. I don't think that there is enough information available for it to become a GA. If you think there is, then I will certainly considering withdrawing this nom, removing the list, and going that route instead. However, there's very little that can be done to expand the current lead into an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is enough information already for this to become a GA, that what I am trying to tell you. Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy is even shorter than this article, but it still passes GA criteria.—Chris! ct 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. In keeping with this line of thought, I'll withdraw this nom and try to work it up to what I would consider GA quality/length in the next few days. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck.—Chris! ct 20:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. In keeping with this line of thought, I'll withdraw this nom and try to work it up to what I would consider GA quality/length in the next few days. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is enough information already for this to become a GA, that what I am trying to tell you. Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy is even shorter than this article, but it still passes GA criteria.—Chris! ct 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I've included every piece of information I could find on the topic. I don't think that there is enough information available for it to become a GA. If you think there is, then I will certainly considering withdrawing this nom, removing the list, and going that route instead. However, there's very little that can be done to expand the current lead into an article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessary "a perpetual stub". It can actually be a GA like my article Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy.—Chris! ct 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So is this article a perpetual stub in your eyes? There's very little available information on it besides what's here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The trophy itself is important, but there's still no need to duplicate the info. You could easily say, "See this article for the list of winners. This specific trophy has been awarded to all winners since 1967" or something to that effect. I do not like redundancy. Reywas92Talk 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is withdrawn in case anyone doesn't know. I can help remove this, but I am not sure if nomination withdrawal required FL director's approval first.—Chris! ct 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.