Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/FC Barcelona in Europe/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 by Dabomb87 01:40, 17 July 2010 [1].
FC Barcelona in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive1
- Featured list candidates/FC Barcelona in Europe/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first of it's kind, I believe, for nomination. There has been some discussion at WP:FOOTY, but there is (as usual) no consensus on whether these articles shd exist. But the fact is that they do exist for almost all major clubs (so someone thought they be important). It's well-reffed, has a lead and some pictures. I'll be the first to say it isn't very interesting, but that's (luckily) not a criteria. Sandman888 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 3(b), and furthermore I think this (and all similar articles) are AfD candidates on the basis of the results violating WP:NOTSTATS, and everything else being either duplication or easily includable into other articles.
I endorse the quality of this list, I really do. Once upon a time thought I worked fast, but what you've managed to with Barcelona in a short space of time is nothing short of amazing. But the fact of the matter is that this list is simply over the top for wikipedia. The prose says absolutely nothing that won't be in a decent history article. The results of finals could be merged into either the records and statistics or the list of seasons, and as I explained to PeeJay in the aforementioned discussion, the overall record in a slightly expanded form would be better off in the records and statistics as well. The European results would in future belong in individual season articles.
As for the Luton article you cited at WT:FOOTY, I feel that it shouldn't be an FL without including cup results. But given my vested interest in giving them a hard time I'm staying well away from that one. In its defence, it is an extension of the records and statistics that could not reasonably be incorporated anywhere else, devotes a total of one line plus relevant footnotes to their entire history against any given club, and while I would personally demote it as-is, the work that would need to be done to keep it there would not be all that difficult. WFC (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this article has an open peer review request. Per the rules, an article should not be at PR and FLC at the same time, please close one or the other -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Director's note Sandman, this FLC has been removed from the nominations list for now because you already have two nominations running. Please wait for one of your older FLCs to be archived before re-submitting this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.