Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of signers of the United States Constitution/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 Giants2008 18:10, 28 July 2012 [1].

List of signers of the United States Constitution edit

Featured list removal candidates/List of signers of the United States Constitution/archive1

Notified: Spangineer , WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't feel it meets the Featured list criteria. The list does not adhere to WP:DTT, and the entire article/list is referenced to one source, which doesn't even provide all the information given. For example, the secretary, William Jackson, is not mentioned at all on the sourced page, and he is listed as representing Tennessee in the table. More references, and possibly a more comprehensive lead would improve the article greatly, while making the table accessible shouldn't be a difficult matter. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've brought this up to standards. Albacore (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a "notes" column as well telling me a little something about each of the signatories - not a full biography, probably only a few sentences for each. As it stands, it's a rather boring list of names and to find out anything about anyone I have to move away from the list, which isn't ideal. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, what does this add at present to Constitutional Convention (United States)#Delegates? Isn't this a 3(b) violation because the material is in fact already contained in another article? Bencherlite ^Talk 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with Bencherlite. The amount of information presented in this article is underwhelming. It needs more. Good raise 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tending to delist - there's not much here that I don't see in the main article that Bencherlite has noted. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the table (the only real difference between this article and the main one) be merged into the main one and this article become a redirect, but that's for another discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agree with Bencherlite, there is no reason why this cannot be in the aforementioned article. NapHit (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, this is a list of signers of the constitution, as opposed to the longer list of delegates to the Convention. Not all of the delegates signed, some because they were absent during the signing, some because they disagreed. So while their is significant overlap, there is a difference in the information conveyed here and at Constitutional Convention (United States)#Delegates. Tomsimlee (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference, sure, but as the list of delegates specifically marks those who didn't sign, this list of those who did sign doesn't add anything. Delist. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Good raise 12:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do some work on the article to try to save it, but the question is whether these votes to delist are on the idea of article in general, or if there is information that could be added to the list that would justify its being a separate list. For example, it would be relatively easy to add general biographical details like dates of birth and death, later holding of offices created by the constitution, etc. However, information like that does not specifically relate to the constitution. It would be considerably more difficult but still probably doable to add information related to each signer's contributions to the debate in terms of major ideas later included in the constitution, or perhaps the dates they were present during the constitutional debates. Just need some guidance. Tomsimlee (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLRC isn't AFD. Lists here don't need "saving". Votes to delist aren't votes to delete. This makes a fundamental difference. At AFD, editors have to take into consideration what could be in the article, here (as far as criterion 3b is concerned) it is sufficient to look at what's already there.

As for guidance, if this list were expanded to include all delegates instead of only the signers and the kind of information you mention (especially the kind specifically related to the constitution) were included in significant quantity, then this list would likely be able to measure up again to the ever increasing quality standards for featured lists. Good raise 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant save it from being delisted, but such a fundamental reorientation of the article from being a list of signers to a list of delegates would obviously require broader attention than FLRC. Tomsimlee (talk) 16:33, 6 July 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.