Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Slipknot discography/archive3

Slipknot discography

previous FTC

Slipknot discography

11 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

9.0: Live

Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

Slipknot Demo

Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Disasterpieces

Voliminal: Inside the Nine

I am renominating this per Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions#Slipknot_discography. The two audited articles have both gone through failed GANs, complete PRs, and passed AfDs. The video albums are also included here, something that I realize is not common among the discography topics. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am going to go out on a limb here and support. Z gin der 2008-11-06T23:39Z (UTC)
Support - it is a shame that this will mean we now have permanently PRed articles, a precedent, but I think you have done all you can really, there's nothing more to say - rst20xx (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I aim to please. I imagine I've received plenty of opposes based on things that have not been done before, but hey, someone's gotta do it at some point. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose - You have two articles that are not unreleased materials, or new materials that are likely to grow significantly (Like elections in a new province, or a new award). As such, they should be submitted to Good Article status, or merged to an appropriate parent article if they aren't notable enough to fulfill GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these did go through AfD's and GAN's too. The GAN's were rejected because the articles were not deep enough, but no other reliable sources could be found to further add to the article. The AfD's stated pretty much that merging the information from the two articles into the parent article would create unnecessary bias towards those two merged. Also, this ought to be taken as a precedent only if AfD's and failed GAN's are provided. Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1GA and its AfD. #2 GAN and its AfD. Nergaal (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when should we remove/merge articles just because we can't get them to GA status, now that's a new one. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because all articles have to be GA status or better to be in Good or Featured Topics. So you are 100% sure that these articles can't be made GA status? Real short but GA? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, in the Good topic criteria it says: "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists) or their inherent instability (for lists and articles), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." REZTER ^TALK ø 11:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm the "in the case of lists" bit was changed with this edit, which there was no consensus for (well, see the edit description). In light of this nom I shall undo it, and if someone wants to redo it, they need to try and establish consensus first, per WP:BRD - rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the question I'm asking is what was the reason these two articles failed GA? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly due to lack of information and sources. They are articles which lack sections due to the lack of sources and are basically too short to be good articles. Oh, and please don't tell us to go look for sources because we seriously would have provided them if they were out there, we are the Slipknot Wikiproject and we have a hell of a lot of sources. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't suggest that, but these would be the first accepted "permanent non-GA's" to be allowed under the audited review feature here, and I'm not sure if that is what was intended by the auditing feature. You may want to consider being really bold and merging the two into a parent article and making it stick, because otherwise, there is no reasonable prospect for them to become Good Articles in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That also has been suggested before, we have enough information so that they deserve their own articles but not enough to become GAs. Now I don't see anywhere in WP:DEL that it says if an article cannot become GAs then they should be deleted or merged. Plus if we added this information to the main Slipknot article it would add far too much weight on these subjects in that article. I don't see in what instances should these articles fail 3.c. of WP:WIAFT. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is difficult, but I think that the topic criteria is clear that all articles must be GA, FA or FL, and I think that the audited criteria, even if it hasn't spelled it out explicitly, is for articles that will grow in the future, not for articles that are permanent stubs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's not spelled out should probably mean that it should be made explicit, so that it's clear that it means one way or the other, unless everyone is fine with the relative flexibility that it offers. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal I believe you're misinterpreting it. You are sayign that an audited article is an article which is not a good article but could potentially be one.... then surely if that was the case then that article should be expanded before being submitted for a good topic. An audited article is an article which is well written but lacks certain information that would make them good articles, and clearly shown by our evidence these articles will never (with the current lack of sources) become good articles, but they are still well written and sourced. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Articles should not be deleted or merged just because they are unable to become good or featured articles, and certainly not so they can become featured topics. I have read the topic criteria numerous times, particularly the part about audited articles, and I see nothing in there (expressed or implied) that says you can not have perpetual audited articles in a topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose. Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) does indeed bring up some valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously disagree and it's not just because I'm one of the major contributors to these articles I just don't see why those two articles fail 3.c. of WP:WIAFT. I have tried to explain numerous times that there is a serious lack of sources for them and I believe whole-heartedly that no further information will be published about them, therefore the articles will not grow in to GAs in the future. If the only advise you can give us is "just hope more information is published" then I don't understand how we can help the situation. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — This is another nom that I'm torn about. The way I see it, if it can't be make GA because there aren't enough sources, doesn't that mean that it fails the notability requirement of having significant coverage and should be deleted? The only reason that I'm not opposing now is that this did go through GAN and AFD and failed both. I personally think that they could make GA, though they might have to use some unusual sources, like archival MTV footage. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus - I think I should give some reasoning for my ruling on this one. I normally give little weight to oppose votes that do not cite a specific violation of WIAFT, and the opposes here are both concerned about criterion 3c, which this topic technically passes by the criterion's current wording. I'm closing this as no consensus because the wording of 3c is vague enough that one could make an argument that it implies temporarily limited subject matter. I recommend that we have a discussion about what that rule means, and depending on the outcome of the discussion, this topic could be renominated. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]