Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/WWE One Night Stand

WWE One Night Stand

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 2 support, 4 oppose. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as it satisfies the FL criteria. It is also detailed, has a suitable lead, along with adequate references. If there are any problems, I will sort them out. Cheers, Dav nel 03 17:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too short. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The event is only three years old, so is that a valid reason? There isn't anything concerning length on the FL criteria. Dav nel 03 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is a valid reason. See also: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Courtney Love discography and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Maurice 'Rocket' Richard Trophy/archive2. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I stated, it still doesn't state that in the criteria. Dav nel 03 18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the list may be short, but it is also "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed", which are the FL criteria. If the length of the article will cause people to oppose, perhaps the FL criteria should be amended to reflect this ideology. Overall, I think this is a really good list that could set a precedent for other lists of pay-per-view events. Nikki311 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This list is not useful enough to be featured. There is a very small amount of content.--Crzy cheetah 19:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot help but yet again say that the event is only three years old - it has only been held three times. There isn't a small amount of content - have you actually read the list - and the notes? By the way, I see nothing in the FL criteria that talks about length issues, therefore your oppose is inadequate. Dav nel 03 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My oppose is based on the 1st criterion of WP:WIAFL. This list is not useful nor is it comprehensive. Yes, this event is only three years old; hence, not useful and comprehensive enough to be featured yet.--Crzy cheetah 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - QUOTE:
    - (a) "Useful" means that the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format (see Wikipedia:List). For example, the list: brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria; is a timeline of important events on a notable topic, the inclusion of which can be objectively sourced; or contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles
      - It clearly matches all of them points. It's a timeline of important events on a notable topic, it brings together a group of existing articles etc. Dav nel 03 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - (b) "Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject.
      - Again it is. How can I cover something that has not yet been announced, nor taken place (if I did I would be crystal-balling). I also have not ommited any major components of the subjects, I have covered all three of the PPVs that have taken place. I really fail to see what your problem is. Dav nel 03 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But it's not really that comprehensive. It's just an article that was forced into being a list. The article could be far more comprehensive than that, ie. it could have more of a history, reception of the various events, the original concept of it being an ECW only event, and so on and so on. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That information surely would go in the sub-articles: 05, 06, 07, 08. Dav nel 03 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But there's still a lot of basic information that could go here and it's all being sacrificed for the sake of making it into a list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I agree with the above opponents: this doesn't really constitute a list, it's a topic that's been kind of forced into a list format. Specifically, I oppose on the grounds that it does not meet 1(a), a topic that lends itself to list format. I think this content would be better treated in prose, as testified to by the "Notes" section of the table. If there's so much prose information to be included, each row would probably be best as an article subsection treating the event as a series. Dylan 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it is not an official criterion, the top of the main WP:FL page reads "The featured lists are what we believe to be the best lists in Wikipedia" and the WP:FLC page reads "A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". Personally I fail to see how a list so short can successfully do this, or can be recognised as one of Wikipedia's finest lists. •97198 talk 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]