Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glossary of philosophical isms/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 21:44, 20 January 2008.

Glossary of philosophical isms

This is a very broad list, covering almost every ism under the sun. Very well laid out and informative. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.}☆ 20:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments First of all: amazing list! This is going to be a wonderful resource to any philosophy student. However, I do have one complaint: it's just too big! I think the article would benefit greatly from being split up. Take for example, the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people series, which is split up into a main article and a number of alphabetical sub-articles. That would help things alot. Also, shouldn't isms be in quotations? Since it's kind of a colloquialism to say "ism". Drewcifer (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Due to my comments (above), as well as those made by other reviewers (below). I hope to see this article back here soon, in whatever incarnation results, as I think it is an excellent idea with tons of encyclopedic potential. Drewcifer (talk) 10:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a major contributor to the list, I would like to comment that I personally do not believe that this article is ready yet for FL status. Definitions could be expanded, literally dozens more philosophies could be added, and while I consider it to be a good list now, I do not believe it is ready for FL status and should be worked on for a bit longer. Why? Because while it is good now, it has the potential to be so much more. All it needs is a little bit more love. --Shark face 217 04:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it doesn't appear that the featured list criteria were consulted before the list was nominated. The glossary fails to meet the criteria because it is incomplete, and because it lacks citations. The Transhumanist 09:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead is way too short. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the definitions are imprecise or go into needless detail. There are no good criteria for a meaningful split. –Pomte 11:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you all mean. Should I withdraw now to save it being opposed? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically speaking, there's no difference between withdrawing and being failed as much as I know.--Crzy cheetah 21:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still want to withdraw it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:25, 19 January 2008 (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 list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.