Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Metallica 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 30 June 2009 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Metal and Nergaal.
I believe that this page does not meet the 3b criterion. It has 10 items, which is the unofficial limit, but the history isn't particularily complex and I don't think it's enough to warrant an entire page. The lead largely recreates material from the main Metallica page (although it should be noted that it is a FA), which does contain a smaller summary of band members. The only thing it lacks is the albums, which I think can be adapted into a table like List of Megadeth band members. Even if the page isn't delisted, it should be converted to tables. -- Scorpion0422 14:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It is now in table format. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of the number of items, this list provides significant information, as much or more than a number of the episodes lists people have referred to as examples of how short lists can meet 3b. Further, the main article made FA while this list was split, so to argue that it should be delisted and merged could theoretically result in the main article being delisted as an FA. What happens in a case where FA judges a list to be too long to exist in a main article, but FLers intepreting 3b broadly delist that list because they believe it should be merged? Isn't there a conflict between the process then? Geraldk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that if the images were eliminated, one could easily fit the tables in the main article. You have to remember that most of the lead is already in the Metallica page, so the only new content is the tables, and it's not enough. Like I said, the only difference between this article and the section at Metallica is the tables and the "Release contributions" column. Both could easily go there and would result in a net improvement in the article. Frankly, what does/doesn't meet WP:WIAFA doesn't matter here. Our goal is to uphold the standards of the Featured List process. -- Scorpion0422 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that there may be a conflict between what WIAFA says and what WIAFL says. That doesn't concern you? It certainly bothers me. The idea that two of the most important recognition processes in WP, two processes that drive a lot of the editing, are working at cross-purposes is a serious problem. Geraldk (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per 3b, certainly can be merged with the main article - whether this delisting will affect Metallica's FA status is irrelevant to FLRC discussion - this list is not up to the FL standard and thus should be delisted.—Chris! ct 20:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the main article already has that info, so this is purely a content fork.—Chris! ct 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scorpion's points. Tony (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Per 3b, and for the fact that the whole lead is taken from the history of Metallica via the main article. This is probably what it's going to look like if we include the release contributions and timeline into the main article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:07, 29 June 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.