Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Slipknot discography/archive1

Slipknot discography

Main page	Articles
Slipknot discography	Slipknot (album) · Iowa (album) · Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) · All Hope Is Gone (album) · 9.0: Live

These are the studio and live albums from Slipknot, similar to both Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Wilco discography. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, but where's the peer review for All Hope Is Gone (album)? (though it does look to be very well referenced) - rst20xx (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would it be possible to include Slipknot's two demo albums: Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. and Slipknot Demo in the topic? MFKR is a GA and Slipknot demo uses as much sourcing as are avalible for the it (it could easily be given a peer review if needed). Black ngold29 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the demo, if it truly is as well sourced as is possible, should be able to get GA - at any rate it can certainly try. So I'd probably oppose its inclusion until it either passes a GAC, or fails a GAC for this very reason. But yes, I'd agree that the two demos and the three DVDs (one of which is GA) are the two most logical directions for expansion - rst20xx (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of adding the DVDs too (one is GA, a second is in GAN, the third is similar to Slipknot Demo). I would really like to get Rezter's view on this, (he's been a main contributer to most of these articles) but he has been unable to access WP for a few days due to some unknown reason. Black ngold29 22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Um... this is most definitely not complete. Where's Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., Slipknot Demo, Welcome to Our Neighborhood, Disasterpieces and Voliminal: Inside the Nine? You also are excluding the singles, which need to be included in this topic since there is not a Slipknot singles discography page. I'm amazed Powderfinger discography and Wilco discography even became featured topics, but this is incomplete even without the singles. Xnux the Echidna 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the singles need to be included? If we're following the precedent set by the two other featured topics, which it seems most WP areas do (too much in fact), then either this one should pass, or the other two should be demoted. It's quite obviously a double standard. I don't care if this gets promoted or not, but I think that all similar topics should be held to a similar level. Black ngold29 23:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the singles should be included because they are just as important to a discography as the albums, and not including them would be cherrypicking. However, it does seem that the scope of the discography topics is merely the albums, so I suppose not including the singles is acceptable. However, it is still incomplete due to the lack of Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., Slipknot Demo, Welcome to Our Neighborhood, Disasterpieces and Voliminal: Inside the Nine. Xnux the Echidna 02:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look back at the other discography topics. They don't include DVDs or demos either (actually I'm not sure, to be honest, and haven't checked, whether any of the other bands involved have demos to exclude, but they certainly have DVDs) - rst20xx (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they should be added. There are two articles (Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood) which will need peer reviewed; the remainder are already GAs. I have contacted Gary King about their inclusion. Black ngold29 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there are no rules pertaining to the minimum length of GAs, and I think that if these articles truly are as well sourced as is possible, they should in theory be able to get GA no problem. I'd oppose the inclusion of these articles as non-GAs unless they fail a GAC solely for being inherently too short. Further, I'd point out that the only articles that are currently in FTs as audited articles of limited subject matter are lists, which backs up what I'm saying somewhat. And finally, if you include all 5 articles, then you'd have 2 out of 11 articles as FAs, and hence you'd need another FA for the topic to meet the FT criteria - rst20xx (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as far as I can tell, All Hope Is Gone (album), while looking very heavily referenced, hasn't been peer reviewed, so I'm going to have to oppose until this is dealt with - rst20xx (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn following a request by the nominator - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]