I am nominating this topic for Featured Topic because I feel that the subject has been completed. All possible articles have been created, with the main season article covering anything not relevant to the other two.
Oppose If there are other episodes from the season, which don't even possess articles, why should this be considered as broad coverage of the topic? Gage (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, wonders never cease. Nice to see that pettiness is also in your repertoire. Sorry, but the season article covers all other episodes (I prefer to not to create brief articles for unnotable episodes), which fits the requirement for Featured Topic. Other topics like this have passed in the past. Ωphois 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition still stands.Gage (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because a thorough discussion of this subject was presented below, instead of simply mud slinging and name calling, I've decided to retract my opposition, and remain neutral on this subject's nomination. Gage (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no ofense but you nominating it for GT with two epiosodes is not good that it would seem lazy, pplease look at 30 Rock (season 1). --Pedro J.the rookie 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] (Comment was removed by user here, restoring and striking so following post makes sense Rambo's Revenge(talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Please let it be noted that both of these users are members of the Family Guy WikiProject, and are merely opposing in retaliation for my recent challenges against some of their articles. Featured topics of this format are already present, making their claims pretty baseless. Ωphois 16:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the opposers, what is the point of the featured topic criteria stating "1 (a) at least 3 distinct articles" if you're going to oppose it on the grounds that it's three articles? If you can show that any other episode could be separated by providing significant coverage in third party reliable sources, then I would understand your opposition. If you cannot, then I have to say that your opposition to promoting it seems more in bad faith. As is your comparison to 30 Rock. That page is a "Featured LIST" - this is a "Featured ARTICLE". The difference being that the season page comprehensively covers all of the episodes that are not notable in their own right. In addition. 30 Rocks featured topic status is as "Seasons of" and not for one particular season (i.e., because it contains 5 featured list articles on the seasons). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As such, I support this candidancy. As it follows Smallville (season 1), which was both promoted and later an extensive attempt to remove it both was found as "keep" (almost unanimously) for the very reason the two of you are opposing it. You have to look at it from this perspective, Supernatural and other shows, like Smallville, are not on some major network like CBS or NBC, and neither were critically acclaimed (e.g., Buffy the Vampire Slayer), so to force the same expectation of "every episode is notable" that you would for something like 30 Rock (which really isn't notable with every episode) or The Simpsons is not reasonable and largely unfair against these types of shows that appear to a more limited audience. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Support .Well big nole taht you put it that way i can see it, and you Ophios you cant say what the F i am opposeing for that is both a insult to me as an editor and a person, and everything you do to the WP: FG is a real lazy move you nominate 2 articals for GAN that only have some gramatical errors and can be fixed if you cared, i am changeing my vote but becuase of Big Nole, and because the criteria meets it not because of you, you and your edits vs me and WP:FG are pointless, thank you for pointing my istake BN but you Ophios, Jodete. --Pedro J.the rookie 17:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Pedro, for further demonstrating your immaturity as an editor. You know, I could report you for your "Jodete" comment, but luckily for you I'm not as petty as the Family Guy project appears to be. Cheers. Ωphois 17:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah i know, and i would gladly take it with pride only if i can give you an ostia, anyway you so so sopisticaed gentelmen why do you not put, the info RR put to let pepole know about this situation, so before you go insulting pepole you mature<cough> editor think for once cause you seem lik you need someone to do it for you, but i admit my prevoius error and still put my support. --Pedro J.the rookie 17:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before anymore comments, I'd like all parties to cease fire from here on out. We're here to discuss the merits of these articles, not each other. Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question—since it wasn't clear to me in reviewing the article: what makes these two episodes notable enough for their own article, and conversely, why are the other episodes not notable enough for their own article. What makes these two episodes more special that the others? –Grondemar 04:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage by reliable sources. All third party sources pretty much focused on either the pilot or the finale. There is nowhere close to enough info on the other episodes to have an article or establish notability for them, so they have been integrated into the season article. Ωphois 11:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grondemar, the production info largely (if not completely) comes from either companion books or DVD commentary, neither of which is exactly "third-party". As I pointed out above, shows on networks like The CW (or The WB and UPN 5 years ago) do not get a lot of coverage from the media. Usually it is significant episodes, like pilots, finales (only some finales), or milestones like 100th episodes. As such, middle episodes - especially for first seasons - seem to go unnoticed and it becomes impossible to find enough significant coverage for those episodes. You either find some review in unprofessional web blogs, which are often confused with being "reliable coverage", or nothing at all. Now, I'm not claiming that nothing is out there, but unless someone has a LexisNexis account and can search through all the print newspapers to see if there are reviews there for other episodes, then this is what we got. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The topic is comprehensive, IMO, if the notability isn't there, the FT process requiring the creation of articles is to increase the work of the AFD process. If the editors who wrote these three articles don't think they should exist, I'm entirely prepared to take them at their word (especially since they took a season article through FAC). Courcelles 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As discussed above, it appears that this topic meets the criteria. Ucucha 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GTN. There were six cricketing brothers in the family, and 4 qualify for a autobio, the others didn't reach top-flight competition. Despite the name, this article is about the cricketing brothers rather than the extra bits about grandsons and grand-daughters although if this raises too many hackles I could always rename the article as I don't intend on going into any depth (ie more than a sentence) on the grandchildren who played football or the daughter who played softball for Australia. In any case I don't see any sources for softball in the 1960s at all this sport is never in any newspapers (and there are no online stats databases) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rename the main article "... in cricket"? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is rather cumbersome. If people complain too much, then I'd prefer brothers, and in the context of a sporting combination, the cricket brothers played together in the same team for 20+ years, whereas their descendants did not YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, particularly if you can get rid of the bit in the above template saying {{{column3}}}. Harriastalk 06:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. --PresN 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also prefer "Harvey brothers" as the name of the main article (and please, get rid of some of those endless strings of references, and of the column3).Ucucha 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any direct refs for those so citing the whole season's scorecards to add things up is the way it has to be done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fair enough; great work on this set. Ucucha 06:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as the topic name (and preferably the main article also) is "X brothers". "X family" is too general and I am guessing there is another person (unrelated to the brothers) with this last name out there notable enough to get an article at some point, in which case the name of that article would be problematic. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid work. Courcelles 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Good work as always! Harriastalk 11:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC) – Apparently I'd already given this my support, way up there! Going dotty! Harriastalk 06:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
