Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts/archive1

Closing rationale

First, I want to thank the nominator, NMajdan, and the various reviewers who put their time and effort into this FLC since it began nearly two months ago.

There is no doubt that this FLC received sufficient reviews to form a consensus; for this reason, coupled with the fact that the FLC is nearly two months old, I want to close this FLC now rather than wait indefinitely until there is unanimous consensus on every unresolved issue.

Two issues, both of which were raised by User:Crzycheetah, raised a significant disagreement and caused this FLC to drag on:

• The alignment of the tables (Cr. 5). Crzycheetah said the text in all cells should be left-aligned, citing Wikipedia:MOS#Internal consistency. However, none of the other reviewers agreed with this interpretation of the MOS, saying that having center-aligned text is fine. In addition, the MOS says that common sense should be used when applying it. Therefore, because the MOS does not specifically proscribe against center-aligned text and the consensus was that the requirement for internal consistency did not apply here, my opinion is that the nominator has satisfactorily responded to this concern and that the issue is not actionable.
• The lack of redlinks for certain athletes (Cr. 5a). Crzycheetah wanted all of the athletes' names to be redlinked. He interpreted WP:ATHLETE to mean that college basketball players, who have competed at the highest amateur level, are inherently notable. However, the other reviewers disagreed with him, pointing out that many players before the 1980s (who constituted most of the unlinked names) did not receive the coverage in third-party reliable sources that modern college athletes receive and therefore were not subject to WP:ATHLETE guidelines as being inherently notable. Other reviewers' supports were not affected by this issue, and therefore I discounted this problem as not actionable.

Besides these two issues, everything else raised by Crzycheetah and the other reviewers had been addressed. Therefore, I discounted Crzycheetah's oppose based on the above explanations and the resolution of his other comments, and find the consensus of this FLC to be one that supports promotion. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)