Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks/archive1

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 05:38, 28 January 2008.

---

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks

This is a bit short due to the teams brief history but I think it cover everything and has good references. Buc (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Too short! Not comprehensive enough to be featured. Nominate this in 4-5 years.--Crzycheetah 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What part of the criteria does it not follow? Buc (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Please, WP:IGNORE the criteria here. As Scorpion0422 has said below, this page does not represent "Wikipedia's best work". I'd even suggest to merge this page into Houston Texans. I just don't see how this list improves Wikipedia. --Crzycheetah 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Drewcifer (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a short article and hardly represents "Wikipedia's best work". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 03:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support mainly to counteract the ones above. Crzycheetah, how many entries does a list need before it is allowed to be featured? We have 7 here, with a large amount of context. --Golbez (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • At least 10. You can check that I suggested this 3-4 months ago here (read the very last comment).--Crzycheetah 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as I don't see any reason why a short list shouldn't be featured, nor do I see anything wrong with this article. I don't think the length of a list has any bearing on whether it represents "Wikipedia's best work". Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, but it is basically a stub with a small table. You wouldn't expect an article of that size to make it to FA because it wouldn't be an example of Wikipedia's best and most comprehensive work. An FL is supposed to be what we believe to be one of the best lists in Wikipedia and I believe that a really short list simply isn't one of them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What we need here is some sort of clear rule on how long a FL needs to be. Buc (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This has come up before, and I'm afraid a hard and fast rule is unlikely. I think we should just be rational about it, and take it on a case by case basis, based on the consensus per case. Although length shouldn't be a factor, common sense tells us it is in some extreme cases. Take for instance, Category:Jimmy Cauty albums, which consists of one album. If you were to make a discog for Jimmy Cauty, that too would be one album. It would be short, but technically "comprehensive" and potentially "well-written." But common sense tells us that that is not FL quality. Where common sense draws the line in a case like this, is a simple matter of consensus. 4 votes to 2 (so far) says that it doesn't make common sense to promote this article. Not the ideal solution, I admit, we do like a rules here at Wikipedia, but I think it's the best we're going to do. Drewcifer (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A list should be at least two lines long. Otherwise it's just a name on it's own. Other than that I don't see an issue. Buc (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Buc that a list is, by definition, a collection of at least two items. Other than that, I don't see why length should be an issue. Length is, IIRC, explicitly not an allowable objection at FAC. And short lists can be very useful to readers, if they provide information the audience is looking for, and presumably those who are interested in football might wish to find such a list, and if it is a useful list that meets Wikipedia policies on referencing and whatnot, I don't see why it can't be considered among Wikipedia's "best work". If this information is most usefully presented in such a short list, then it can indeed be among the best and most comprehensive pages on Wikipedia - not all featured content needs to be equally arduously long to create. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above concerns about length and the fact that it is totally repetitive to List of Houston Texans draft selections. This list is basically the same list just with less information. It seems precedence was set that for these types of lists, there needs to be 10 years worth of selections (per the Ravens FLC).
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gonzo. Strikes me it would have been a better idea to expand the List of Houston Texans draft selections article to FL rather than generate this small subset article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree No offense to those that work on these articles, but I think a lot of these first round draft picks lists (even some of the ones that are already FLs) could easily be merged with the main draft pages, especially for the teams that have been around less than 20 years. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Does that mean you would Oppose any first-round draft pick list to be nominated here? Buc (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, of course not, all opinions are given on an article-by-article basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'll go ahead and disagree here - I don't believe length alone is grounds to fail this nomination. Our only criteria should be these: is it useful to a reader as an independent list, and is it a well-created list. As to the former, I'd say there are plenty of sports buffs and Houston fans who would be interested in seeing the first round draft picks, since first round picks have a special prominence that separates them from the remainder of pciks in the NFL draft. As to the latter, this is well written, well-referenced, well, formatted, and has a good if not exceptionally well-written lead. And we should note that it has more entries than some existing featured lists, such as List of counties in Rhode Island. If we are going to set a length limit, then we should develop some alternative lesser citation than FL, in the way that an article that doesn't quite live up to the comprehensiveness and/or length of an FA can be a GA. Geraldk (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment It is still redundant to List of Houston Texans draft selections. Should we start taking lists and making them smaller and smaller so they can be featured? And a list of 7 names over 6 years is not representative of Wikipedia's best work, which is the first key to any featured content on the Wiki.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, unless Rhode Island feels like adding more counties to its state, this list is set and will never grow larger. The Texans 1st-round draft picks will (hypothetically) never stop growing. So size can be a factor. And although I hate comparing articles, what if a new city gets an NFL team and chooses its first, first round draft pick, should we have an article with one item in the list? I mean it could meet all the criteria, but can we really say that would be representative of our best work? I would say no. I think setting a limit for these lists would be fine (say 10 years, which was agreed upon for the Ravens list). But I cannot look at this list and say it is the best work of Wikipedia.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't think a short list can be "Wikipedia's best work". Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.