Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle/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 The Rambling Man 17:16, 2 June 2012 [1].

List of international cricket centuries by Chris Gayle[edit]

Nominator(s): Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A developed list of international centuries by Chris Gayle. It meets the criteria. I am the creator of the article. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and possibly quick-fail. The entire lede is an unattributed copy-paste from Chris Gayle. Most of it has no relevance to this list and almost nothing within the list is not already included in the main article. FLC #2, #3a are not met and likely fail of #3b also. In addition WP:V is also not met -- except the first paragraph of the lede, no other part is referenced. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get to see the attribution. First revision. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not begin to cover the plagiarism in this. There's hardly any unique or created content on this list at all. —SpacemanSpiff 07:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons says that once you modify it; you need not provide attribution to others. I've modified it, made change in the tables, added tons of references, added links.... Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In which case you'll need to read up about the Creative Commons license as well as plagiarism. —SpacemanSpiff 10:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Potential victim of criterion 3b. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. All this information exists in the main article. What's the point of this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What it doesn't have is the references, and more detailed review of the table. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well since it fits perfectly already into the main article, maybe you should just add those refs there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, apart from all the other concerns, this also doesn't even come close to following the format of the other similar lists, which have got to have formed something of a precendent for how these should be laid out by now. Harrias ^talk 17:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.