Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party/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 Sephiroth BCR 22:52, 11 April 2009 [1].

List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party edit

Notified: WikiProject Alternative music, Gary King, WilliamH

I'd like to get this out of the way: Yes, I know that the FLR process is not a subsitute for the afd or merge processes.

Let me start that I believe that I have failed in one of my most important duties as FL director: maintaining high standards for the Featured List process. For too long I have watched FLs like this go through the process and I usually never commented and I myself promoted them. I think it is time to start examining where the process has gone. Let's face it, FLs these days take less effort than GAs. People see this and they decide to try to get as much featured content as possible by working on easy cookie cutter lists. These award and nomination lists are a prime example of this. Whether or not some of them should even exist is never called into question. So I am going try to start a discussion on some of these FLs and I am using this one as a test case. Such small lists with such a small, limited scope hurt the process because people look at them and say "that's all it takes?"

I've always seen off-shoot lists as a chance to add things that you wouldn't be able to add in the normal article, either due to length, or undue weight concerns. The main Bloc Party article (which is a GA) is 33 KB. This page is 24 kb, but most of it is references (many of which are used in the BP article). These lists should be used for artists who have received many accolades for many different works that would be too difficult to put in one place, like The Beatles or Quincy Jones.

Sure, this page is referenced and nicely formatted, but the question that needs to be asked is this: Does a page that could easily be merged into another with 376 words of readable prose size and small tables really qualify as wikipedia's best work? It is important to note that I am not saying all small lists should be delisted. For example, NHL Foundation Player Award is a FL and I do wish it was longer, but it's mostly original non-duplicated content and no practical place to merge. However, I think you could argue that this one could easily be merged. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence sums up why I don't think this is appropriate. There really isn't anything actionable here. If you want to merge, then take it to the article's talk page or if necessary, to AfD. When it really comes down to it, this doesn't fail WP:WIAFL, so there's nothing for FLRC to address unless there's a tangible consensus elsewhere to merge, which is an editorial decision (and to some extent, a notability discussion) that doesn't belong at FLRC. My immediate reaction is to close this. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I think that it is because the FL? criteria is flawed. During our change discussions, I pushed for some kind of notability or usefulness criteria, but I was summarily ignored. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sephiroth BCR, the article seems to meet all the FL criteria, therefore it should be a FL. I agree though that the list is particularly short and there are a number discography FLs I've seen go through where I thought they were too short as well. Unfortunately length isn't one of the criteria by which FLs are judged according to WP:WIAFL, maybe this should be addressed. But until it is addressed the outcome of this FLRC should be to keep. --JD554 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but if this list meets the criteria, then the criteria needs to be changed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh I agree. But then the discussion should take place at WT:WIAFL. If consensus is reached for a change to the criteria then FLRCs can be made. Until then this article should remain an FL as it meets the current criteria. --JD554 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would also argue that it does not meet the very first, and most important, part of the criteria: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." The criteria also says: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content", although they are not specifically mentioned, I believe this list is not notable enough for it's own page and is content forking. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 11:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we change the criteria first, then come here. Many FLs could be potentially delisted and merged if we set a new precedent; please let's discuss it first. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The core of this is: what do we want FL to be--anything or only things notable? I agree with Dabomb87. For this particular list, the question is "Is this group notable enough?" It's a minor band and I see why it may be delisted. Just like some articles will never in reality be FAs, though theoretically any could, the same is true of lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hold~~ this FLRC until the criteria concerns are sorted out. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist -- Seeing how the new criteria is about to pass, this can easily be merged into the main article. Unless they have won new awards as of late that will expand it significantly, then no it should not remain a featured list or separate article.--Tru co 17:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per criterion 3b, this list does not warrant being separate. Nothing can be done to address this (other than get the band to win a lot of awards in the next two weeks or so), so might as well delist now. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per the new criterion 3b. iMatthew : Chat 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and merge per the new 3b. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist 80 % of info is already in the main article, just add two more sentences about nominations and it's good to go(i.e. merge).--Crzy cheetah 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The fact they have won one award can easily be merged back into the main article. --JD554 (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it pains me, I'll have to say delist because of the new content fork thing (3b I presume.) Sorry. GARDEN 14:18, 10 April 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.