Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Slipknot discography/archive2

Slipknot discography[edit]

Note that this was a Good Topics nomination - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Slipknot discography	Slipknot · Iowa · Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) · All Hope Is Gone · 9.0: Live · Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. · Slipknot Demo · Welcome to Our Neighborhood · Disasterpieces · Voliminal: Inside the Nine

Major contributors: user:Rezter, user:Blackngold29, user:Rtiztik, user:Dude527, several IPs

could not check for 9.0 & voliminal due to the ":"

The two audited articles were too short for Good article status so they have been peer reviewed instead. Gary King (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ - this is the first time there have been audited articles, as opposed to audited lists, which makes me quite uneasy, but the reason they both failed GA is all spelled out on the talk pages, and it was due to shortness, so, what can you do? Nothing - rst20xx (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - I think that the Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood need to be made Good articles or merged. The usual reasons for the checkmark, such as being unreleased, or having a big potential for future growth, don't really apply here. So the options really are either GA status or merger. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We considered merging but decided against it because these albums are notable enough for their own articles. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more like the lists with checkmarks, not the articles - rst20xx (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, if the albums are notable enough, the sources should allow them to grow to GA's, and if they can't, then the should be merged. I really don't think that the audited article provision applies to either of these articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that every article that is as well researched as it truly can be should be able to get GA or even FA, but unfortunately this is demonstratedly not the case. Further, I do not support the merging of these articles as just because they've failed GA, that doesn't automatically mean they're not notable enough to exist at all - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said, both articles have been GA nom'd per their last FT nomination. Both failed. Merging was discussed, but decided against. After all, why would the "Audited article" criteria exist if we can't use it? Pleny of FTs have them. Black ngold29 19:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might not be the best place to bring up this point, but I believe for GTs, this type of ckeckmarks should be allowed if strong evidence is presented (as seems to be the case here), but simply not allow them when the issue comes of promoting the GTs to FTs (I agree to being 100% strict for featured content, but not sure it should be the case for good content too). Nergaal (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is effectively a proposed rule change, and as such should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria - rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — It should be possible to bring a reliced album to GA. As one of the GA noms said, it needs information on "reception, impact, and importance of this release". I don't think the small article check is valid here. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you if any further information existed on "reception, impact, and importance" it would be there. But it just does not exist. See my comment above, if we could get it to a GA we would, but with the current sources we have we cannot; that's why the "audited article" class exists. Black ngold29 21:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it's just been brought to my attention that the peer reviews on the two -articles have not concluded, despite what is stated in the nom here. Therefore, I oppose for the time being - rst20xx (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, didn't notice that (I marked them as checkmarks after I opened the PRs; I've changed the icons I use now!) This nomination will be back. Gary King (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]