Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Dream Theater band members/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [1].

List of Dream Theater band members

Featured list candidates/List of Dream Theater band members/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of Dream Theater band members/archive1

Notified: WP:WikiProject Metal, WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock, User:Blackngold29.

3b. Only thing that will be added into the main article would be the timeline. As for everything else, it is already on the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why would this not be grounds to delete all 68 List of band members articles? The essential components to a band are its music and its members; these two components should be included in the main article of every band. Merging a featured list into a C-class article simply seems counter-productive. black ngold29 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this band only has 9 members, which violates the community rule of 10. I purely nominated this list for FLRC because of that 3b criteria, and only that. If this band had 15+ current/former members, then it wouldn't have been nominated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make a difference if I added a sentence or two about three singers who were in the band for about one show each? They aren't really considered "real members" today, and there's very little out there about them, but I may be able to come up with some sources if that'll put it over the 10 mark. black ngold29 22:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree with BlacknGold here. Looking over the Dream Theatre article, it is more than long enough to warrant sub articles that go in depth on specific topics. This article contains plenty of well sourced information to stand alone.

I also believe the avenue of approach is to consider a merger rather than delisting it (As it would be automatically delisted if a merger was sucessful) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent is to go through an FLR, and if it is successful, the list is merged. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to BNG29, those shouldn't be included into the article, as they weren't "officially" band members of Dream Theater, and didn't contribute to any of their releases from what I see. To reply to Floydian, most, if not all of the lead, is copied information from the History section of the main article. The released contributions are also in that section of the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be splitting hairs, but I wrote the lead from scratch. Obviously there are similarities, but it wasn't a copy and paste job. Also, the lead is cited throughout where the main article is seriously lacking citations. black ngold29 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it offended you in any way, but I just thought that most of the information in this article should be on the history of the main one. In a trying not to sound like I own the article way, I just think the information in this article can be put into the main one. Having quality is better than having stars (read that somewhere before), and this list currently doesn't meet criteria 3b IMO, as it can reasonably be included as part of the main article.; you could make the main article into a GA...-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) No offense taken, I understand your argument. Just one more statement and I'll let the rest of the review process take place: I understand that this list doesn't meet the "community requirement of 10 items" for a FL, and that consensus on the "10 rule" arose after this list's FLC, but I don't think that it is in clear violation of rule 3b as it is written. I wrote this list because it was a way of improving the band's coverage on WP, although not having to take on the larger task of re-writing the main band's article (though I do hope to do that at some point, though not likely anytime soon). I think the list presents its info in a quality manor, and deleting the list because the band didn't have the trouble that others have had in finding the right lineup, because of no clear failure to meet any FL requirements isn't improving WP. If the consensus is that lists should have 10 items, then state that in the rule. Thanks. black ngold29 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason to delist is based more on whether or not this meets the requirements for stand-alone lists (describe in 3b), and less on the 10-items rule.—Chris!_c/t 02:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which then brings me back to my original question: "Why would this not be grounds to delete all 68 List of band members articles?" I'm not a big fan of having lists that exist, but will never be albe to achieve FL status. I understand it'll happen, but 68 lists? black ngold29 02:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the ones that have less than what the community thinks is the limit for band members lists should be up for WP:AFD. If you look here, you'll see that this is the only band members list that does not satisfy the stand-alone lists rule. I already added what is needed in the main article after the merge, so you're opinion will greatly be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist clear violation of criterion 3b as described by SRE.K.A.L.—Chris!_c/t 01:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't see much difference between this list and the Dream Theater#Band members section.--Cheetah (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and merge Absolutely no reason to have a separate page just giving the names of the members again. Yes, most of the other band member articles should be merged/deleted due to their lack of content. The little that there is is just a replication of what is easily found on the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – The list and timeline have both been incorporated into the main article, and I see no way that the list can pass 3b. It also fails 5b, as alt text is not provided for images. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - echoing Floydian and Blackngold's objections. I agree with Floydian that the place for a discussion of whether a list should be merged is in a merger discussion, and not in FLRC. It does an end run around normal Wikipedia processes. Geraldk (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for failing criterion 3b. Goodraise 02:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as the information it contains could "reasonably be included as part of a related article". Much of it already is, in fact. Merger discussion can take place elsewhere. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Dream Theater article. While there is clearly some good sourced content here I think it would be beneficial to combine it and have an improved overall article on the band. As an aside, I don't think FLs have to go through FLRC before merges though. I believe (Scorpion once alluded to this, but correct me if I'm wrong) that if consensus to merge is established the list can just be merged and it will automatically be delisted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really comes down to semantics and politics. Go with the consensus. Who cares about the formal order of operations besides the wikilawyers? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:25, 13 October 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.