Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks/archive3

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 19:39, 5 February 2008.

---

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)

Failed last times becase there wasn't enough support. Thought I might as well try again. Buc (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Speedy Close According to the edit history, you have made exactly 0 edits to the page since the last FLC failed. You can't just keep resubmitting FLCs until they pass. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • But it didn't fail for any reason other than no one supported it. There is nothing more to do. Buc (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You really need to learn how the FLC process works. There were concerns about the sourcing in the article, and you haven't addressed that at all. Perhaps you should withdraw this nom and get in touch with Colin so you can address his concerns. Once this is done, THEN the article should be resubmitted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Buc, you had 5 people who commented on the last one. It was closed because you had not resolved the issues with references, and it had come on top of another nomination. You cannot keep pushing this through until you get the result you want. This should be closed. Woody (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok well tell what needs to be fixed and I'll see what I can do. Do FLC work diffrent from FLC so something? Buc (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Excuse me? Woody (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Colin expresses himelf far more eloquently than I can in the last FLC. Read his comments carefully, then read them again. Woody (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - can't see any differences from when the previous FLC closed. Perhaps consider a peer review? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What needs to be changed? I can't do anything if you don't tell me. Buc (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry Buc but as I've said, a peer review can do no harm. Be constructive and humble - ask the community to spend their time helping you get this article up to scratch. A good PR and this will fly through FLC, just look at what happened to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons with the help of WP:FOOTBALL... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That doesn't arnswer my question at all. Buc (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, perhaps I can clarify. You need to take this article to a peer review where the community will discuss what they expect to see. It precludes an individual from making an article their own and helps to produce an article which everyone will support. Does that make it clearer? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've taken it upon myself to adopt this nomination, as Buc appears not to understand how this works - you don't keep throwing it at the wall until it sticks, if people don't support then oh well, come back later, but don't keep badgering us. It doesn't work. That said, I'm attempting to correct the issues brought up in the previous FLCs; please direct any complains to me. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For the following reasons:

Click to see my reasons

• • Three FLC's in one month. Do I have to say anymore? Well I am :-)
    • Treat this as a new one, ignore the others. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Nominator has not edited since the last failed nomination.
    • FLC is not a one-man show, it's not all about the nominator. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the last failed nom, the page has been edited 4 times (as of my post): fixing a category (nothing to do with FLC), Wikilinking "Arizona Cardinals", again nothing to do with FLC, changing: "number one" to "first," "number two" to "second," "number three" to "third" and removing two sentences about Hall of Famers and most selections from a college, removing pic of stadium, moving Bush picture up. The last two are the only ones that really have something to do with FLC.
    • Yes, and perhaps you have some more suggestions as to how I can improve it for FLC. I went through the previous noms to find problems brought up, and I worked on the ones that hadn't been fixed. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on procedural grounds, this nom should be failed. Trying to push a nom through is opposite to what we are trying to do here, which is make quality lists.
    • Ignore all rules - I opposed the last one on procedural grounds, then actually looked at the article and thought, well ya know, maybe it COULD be a featured list if someone who knew what was going on fixed it. That's me. Direct all concerns to me, please. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Over the span of the three FLCs (one month), there have been 34 edits to the page, with only 17 of those by the nom, showing no interest to try and work on the page based on the suggestions by the community. WP:FLC says nominators must "make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised." Obviously none of our objections have been addressed by this nominator.
  • Golbez, if you are adopting this nomination, then this one should be failed, and a new one started after objections have been addressed. I would be totally ok with this, but this nom should be failed first and we start anew after past objections have been addressed.
    • I'm lazy. And, past objections have been addressed, where I found them. If I missed one, instead of saying "not addressed", please bring it up here. --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• I cannot believe this has been allowed to go on like it has. I dont know about the community (it seems they agree here) but my patience is starting to get exhausted. It is no fair to the hard-working editors who put a list here, have it failed, and then go to work for a while, trying to address the issues, and then trying for FL again. Thus I oppose this nomination.
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you are free to leave the FLC, though I point out that your concerns may then not be acted upon. What concerns do you have about the list? --Golbez (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. I was about to vote 'speedy close', as I did on the previous FLC. But I decided to see just what issues were outstanding, and see if I could repair them, and I decided, yes, I could. So, instead of speedy closing it without getting any valid input, I'd like to know what further issues there are with the list. You claim the older ones were not fixed; I challenge that assertion. So please, help me improve the article. Maybe this belongs in PR, but since you folks have said that the issues remain outstanding, please go one step further and say which issues those are. It's highly unlikely that this nom will succeed, but at least something good can come of it instead of you people ignoring what I'm trying to do and just throwing it back at Buc. I'll keep it from being nominated again so long as the issues remain unresolved, but first I have to know what those issues are. --Golbez (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Explaining myself.

Basically, as far as I could tell the last nomination failed because there was no reason for it to pass. Now, normally with FAC Raul will re-start a nom where there is no consensuses to pass it, for whatever reason that wasn’t done here. This didn’t really bother me because I though re-nominating it would work just as well. Evidently I shouldn’t have done that, not entirely sure why but I will keep this in mind in the future and I apologies. But now this nomination is here we may well use it. This page is for discussions on how to get this article to FL status not having a go at me about why this nomination should or shouldn’t have been made. Please go to my talk page if you want to discuss that further. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand: what needs to be done to get List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks to FL status. Buc (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on Buc, the reason the last two nominations failed was because of your unwillingness to work with other's objections and suggestions. People would give you suggestions and you would make excuses on why their suggestions were wrong. It was either your way or the highway. A lack of support is just the same as opposition. And you would think that after the second nomination where 2-3 users asked for a close due to procedural grounds because you nominated right after it failed the first, this being after you canvassed for support in the second nom, that something would tell you not to immediately nominate the list again, especially after making 0 edits to the page. And FLC is not the place "for discussions on how to get this article to FL status," that would be WP:PR, where a bunch of editors have said you should brings this list. WP:FL is where we determine if a list meets the criteria to be featured, it is not a peer review forum. But whatever, Im tired of reviewing these nominations. Ill let others decide this one. Buc, for future reference, dont repeat what youve done here and be open to other's suggestions. Golbez, good luck on the nomination.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

sigh Let me repeat myself:I will keep this in mind in the future and I apologies. Now can we PLEASE! get back to the matter at hand: what needs to be done to get List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks to FL status. Buc (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you've let your formatting get the better of you but please refrain from SHOUTING and talking in bold. It is easily perceived as aggressive and not conducive to constructive criticism. I would suggest you read the comments provided here and act on them. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to act on comments when can get some feedback on the article. Buc (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You put that well, thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It would be great if we could somehow find out how the 1967 pick was aquired.--Crzycheetah 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hm, I'm not an expert on the draft process, but does it have to have come from somewhere? Looking at the 1967 draft, there were 26 first round picks but only 25 eligible teams, 9 in the AFL and 16 in the NFL. Is it possible New Orleans was given the first and last pick of the draft since they were an expansion team? Though the Oilers are shown as having two picks, neither of which is shown as being acquired from another team... There appears to be no other sources about this, though perhaps someone could contact the Saints organization directly and ask. --Golbez (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Brought up before. Couldn't find anything. But I only have the net at my disposal, someone might have a book that explains it. Can only hope.Buc (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose- This FLC has been nominated twice already in the last month. The creator has canvassed, and issues still haven't been resolved. I'm not saying it's not a good article, but I don't see any way that this will pass now. Send it through a peer review, wait at least two months, and then resubmit it. -Mastrchf91- 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why two months? Also I can't resolve issues if people don't piont them out to me. No one, apart from Crzycheetah, has given me feedback. Buc (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Get over this feedback thing Buc, the community has been patient enough to give you two FLC noms before this one. We justify this as enough feedback. Basically, no one really wants to deal with you. Everyone here notices that any suggestions they make are going to be shot down if you don't agree with them. You keep on asking for feedback, yet when people give you constructive feedback (and Im not only talking about this nom) you rarely ever concede any changes. People don't want to take the time to review a list and then have everything they say get shot down or receive an excuse not to make the changes.
      Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If I agree with a suggestion I'm happy to put it in. If I don't agree with a suggestion of course I'm not going to compile, but I'm happy to try and come to a compromise of some sort. But if you don't say anything there is nothing I can do. Buc (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Why 2 months? Well...I was originally going to suggest 4 or 6, but I knew that you'd probably not wait that long anyway. So, by saying 2 thought that'd be something you'd think was reasonable. -Mastrchf91- 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • But what will be diffrent in 2 mounths that means I can't nom till then? Buc (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Buc, I suggested a few pages above that you should take this to a peer review. Why not do that? There's no time limit or prize for rushing things through to FA or FL. You should be thankful and, more importantly, respectful to the people who are generous enough to spare time to provide comments and suggestions on your various nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Well that's just it, no one is providing comments and suggestions. Buc (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
            • You want suggestions, and I'll give them. First, find out how the 1967 pick was attained. Look at a local library if you can't find anything on the net. Second, highlight any players that were Pro Bowl/elected to Hall of Fame, and create a key to detail this. That's all for now, I guess. -Mastrchf91- 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
              • First off thank you for istening to me. Ok there are no Hof players in this list and do you mean any player elected to the Pro Bowl at least once in there career or in there rookie year? Nothing I can do about the 67, all I have is the net and I can't find anything on there. Buc (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.