Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of African American United States Senators/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 Scorpion0422 00:49, 26 January 2009 [1].
Apparently this list overlaps with African Americans in the United States Congress. However, the list content looks malplaced there as it is becoming unwieldy. Also, that article is unsourced. Maybe the entire list content there should be split off in this format.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this list really necessary? It's too short and there is currently a merge proposal, so this FLC should be withdrawn until after the discussion has ended. -- Scorpion0422 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fail Too short (the consensus on minimum number of items is 10) and unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick-fail - too short for the minimal 10 item policy, this is one of those lists that are not an exception to that. In addition, it was just created and is unstable.--TRUCO 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick fail - the six item list is well referenced but this type of list shouldn't be exempt from the 10-item minimum. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If I were to convert this to an African American Congressmen list would it be approved as a separate list or would it be merged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had consensus from the relevant wikiprojects and talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you comment on the merge discussion about whether it should be merged or whether the list content should be split.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, we don't start lists out as "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had consensus from the relevant wikiprojects and talk pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If I were to convert this to an African American Congressmen list would it be approved as a separate list or would it be merged?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I do not believe that a list should be quick failed because it is too short. Either a list should be able to become featured or it should not independently exist. This list should be merged back to African Americans in the United States Congress; I see this completely redundant to the main list. To Truco above, I see see absolutely no reason why the list is unstable. Reywas92Talk 23:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list's content is not unstable, but its status as an independent article is. There is a merge discussion going on. Also, there are some lists that are too short to be a Featured list but should exist, see List of Dallas Mavericks head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I disagree with the 10-item requirement; we shouldn't have to wait for Carlisle to retire and have a tenth coach to make that excellent list featured. Reywas92Talk 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that was an obscure example. Try List of Memphis Grizzlies head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I disagree with the 10-item requirement; we shouldn't have to wait for Carlisle to retire and have a tenth coach to make that excellent list featured. Reywas92Talk 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list's content is not unstable, but its status as an independent article is. There is a merge discussion going on. Also, there are some lists that are too short to be a Featured list but should exist, see List of Dallas Mavericks head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily closed Not because it's short, but because there is a merge proposal at the moment. Once that is resolved (and if the article still exists), then it can be re-submitted. -- Scorpion0422 00:47, 26 January 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.