Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2011 WWE Draft/archive1
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 by Giants2008 21:22, 30 June 2011 [1].
2011 WWE Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Truco 503 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back with an annual Draft list, modeled after the previous year's list with a few changes. Other than probably grammar or some type of prose problems that come up every year, I feel that this list satisfies the FL criteria. Truco 503 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Numerous prose problems, but mainly... where's the notability? I don't see a single source connected unconnected with WWE, or anything to indicate this is important in any way at all, and not just a non-notable episode of a TV show. Courcelles 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "numerous prose problems" doesn't help any list out, especially it being WP:WEASEL talk. Notability is established on the basis of previous lists. See all the other draft FLs. --Truco 503 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "two of the draft picks consisted of the same wrestler, John Cena—being selected to SmackDown with the first pick and back to Raw with the last." Yet the list indicates that Sheamus was the last selection. One example out of at least a dozen before I stopped reading. And I was trying to give you the courtesy of time to find independent refs before I sent this straight to AFD. As it stands, if there's not actual coverage from independent sources, not only should this not be featured, it shouldn't even be an article. Courcelles 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, there is an issue with notability that must be resolved. All references are WWE or Tweets from WWE employees (which presumably are as fictional as the WWE in any case). Does anyone outside the WWE believe this event to be notable in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed sources from WWE and have replaced them with sources from other reliable third-party websites. --Truco 503 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose – With the addition of a few secondary sources, I'm at least convinced that the draft is notable enough for an article. However, meeting notability standards isn't the same as meeting FL standards, and I think the list could use more work. I picked up on quite a lot of little faults when going through the page, which leave me unconvinced that it's ready.
|
- Last, but not least, are we comfortable using Twitter as a source? The social networking sites as a group aren't the greatest in the world for encyclopedia purposes, and they don't seem to be adding much to the section they're in anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason its here is to verify the comments made by the Superstars, just as WWE advertised on television that twitter had their comments.--Truco 503 03:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this one up in case in any other reviewers want to offer their thoughts. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, leaning towards agreeing with Courcelles. This should be archived, and a copyedit over at GOCE should be done. Once that's done this shouldn't do too bad on the 2nd try. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.