Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons shorts/archive1

The Simpsons shorts edit

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: 11 days, 2 support, 2 oppose. No consensus, or active discussions. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good list which is well developed and sourced with information about the topic being described. Tarret^talk 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: None of the shorts have their own pages and you need a source for all of the individual episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of the shorts should have their own pages and that doesn't mean that this can't be a great list. There is a source for all the facts. It is in Richmond pp. 14-15 as written in the references section. --Maitch 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's part of the FL criteria: 1a1 - brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. I personally dislike that one, but oh well. And each episode should have it's own individual citation because there are descriptions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a one-minute short shouldn't have a page of its own. If that makes it fail FLC, then it has to be that way. --Maitch 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The shorts not having pages doesn't matter and isn't required to make a good episode list. Gran² 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Oppose as well; heck yes it matters. 1a1 is probably the most important criterion. The list has to bring together a series of articles. As mentioned, the shorts aren't notable enough for their own, so it will have to remain unfeatured. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps if we could expand the production info on the page, we couldtry getting it to GA status, like Smallville (season 1). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if I'm not horribly mistaken, the third possible criteria for 1a is "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." I believe this is an honest mistake by the above, as there are plenty of featured lists that use this criterion to satisfy 1a. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sephiroth is quite right. Opposing on that basis is a simple misreading of the criteria.--Pharos 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe so, but would you consider a list of 2 minute shorts to be a "significant topic of study"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't honestly know how this information should be treated (if at all), but the current situation is certainly better than each one having it's own article! :)--Pharos 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Golbez 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]