Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [1].

List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana edit

Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana/archive1

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This might be the most debateable one I've nominated yet (it'ss a little more painful for me, because I do quite like Nirvana) because Nirvana (band) is a Featured Article, and adding a bunch of awards information could easily unbalance it. However, with 21 items, a merge still would be possible. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. I do think 25 is about the limit between splitting off these lists and embedding them into the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait So what's happening? I say this as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music and its Nirvana taskforce, and I haven't been around much lately. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They introduced a new criterion which basically means that if a list could be put into an article (i.e., not long enough to warrant a separate page) or is a content fork it cannot be featured. Yeah, I found it a bit sudden too. It basically means all but a select few List of awards... articles will have their bronze stars stripped from them. GARDEN 09:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; 3b. Merge if possible. Tony (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the importance of a band should be taken into consideration for these lists and Nirvana are considered to be an important band in terms of influence at the very least. While the article currently contains 21 items, it should at least contain 23 (I found a couple more to add this morning - an ECHO nomination and a Radio Music Award nomination[2] - for which I just need to track down reliable sources) and I'd be surprised if there weren't more. While 25 would be a good rule of thumb for these lists, having 23 for an important band make this very border-line and given that the Nirvana article is FA and they were an important band I would keep the list as a FL. --JD554 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to point out that notability is not inherited. Yes, Nirvana is an extremely notable band, but that does not mean every single article relating to it is also extremely notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying the list of awards is notable because the band is notable - it is notable due to the coverage of the awards and nominations received in reliable sources otherwise we'd be looking at an AfD. What I am trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the rule of thumb of 25 nominations/awards shouldn't be a hard and fast rule and consideration should be given to the importance of the band when determining the number of nominations/awards which make a sustainable list. --JD554 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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