Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:48, 16 October 2010 [1].

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast/archive1

Notified: Gary King, WikiProject Companies

Another FL criteria violation (3b). This featured list can easily be merged into the main article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ so this is a 3.b breach. But could it not be salvaged by adding extra stuff about the mergers? Sandman888 (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until we know what 3b is going to look like long-term. While it is actively in flux, I can't support removing FL's for that rule. (NB: I'm not 100% certain this is unsalvageable even with 3b as it stands.) Courcelles 03:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be taken to AfD if one is concerned about SAL criteria? Sandman888 (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, AfD seems to be the appropriate forum for 3.b concerns. On behalf of K. Annoyomous I've created the relevant discussion here. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and I've closed it as premature. It doesn't make sense to have a de-featuring and deletion process in play at the same time. Please resolve whether or not this list is to remain featured, and renominate without prejudice when and if it is delisted. The alternative is to open the door for the content to remain featured, but deleted--clearly, a nonsensical result. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wish you had discussed that before closing. Precedence has it that FL can be deleted without going through FLRC, and one of the concerns on the RfC of 3.b was that 3.b objections duplicate 3.b so therefor an article should be allowed to be featured if it can survive AfD. As both WFC and I pointed out in the RfC it would make sense to leave 3.b concerns to AfD as a part of WP:SAL. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The list was incomplete as it did not include The New Yorker. I have redirected it to the relevant section of the Condé Nast Publications article. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and then redirect to the main article. It has already been merged. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delist if that even makes any sense any more... DRV seems in favour of overturning, rendering the FLRC moot. Sandman888 (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a delist here would render the DRV moot, since I've already agreed that if it's delisted then an administrative close is no longer appropriate. That's principally a semantic distinction in this case, though, since only one person seems inclined that it be kept as an FL. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I know Dabomb87 or TRM they'll let it run until the RfC on 3.b is over per the above keep. Then probably require editors to revisit their delists based on the outcome of the rfc, but it doesnt seem to be going anywhere. Sandman888 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - List has already been merged with the main article. Please continue the removal of its featured status. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update Merge has been undone, another AfD has been started. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge hasn't been undone, its still in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist the 3.b rfc doesn't seem to be going anywhere with discussion died out. From the current criteria this is included in another article without remotely exceeding size concerns. Sandman888 (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the final consensus is reached on what the 3b really means and what it entails. I am not convinced that "But it could be merged into an article..." is a sufficient reason to delete and/or delist an FL. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FL status. It's hard to see how this could be merged into Condé Nast Publications without creating a weight problem on that article. It's perfectly appropriate for a list to complement an article, offering a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in the article. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FL status. Agree that the list is of a high-level of quality, and that it helps to complement the core article, rather than overwhelm it. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Normally I'd point to criterion 3b as justification for my oppose/delist vote and be done with it. However, seeing as 3b is currently being discussed in depth on the criteria talk page, I feel the need to dig a little deeper this time. In my opinion, having lists like this go around displaying the bronze star is hurting the encyclopedia. "Getting a list to featured status" is considered some sort of achievement by many editors. In almost all cases that is a good thing. Put intentionally oversimplified, it motivates certain kinds of editors to create high quality content, who otherwise wouldn't. But there's an exception. Unlike normal articles, which are treated with the full force of our notability guidelines, list articles only face the mild breeze of "no consensus" in that area. If not for the FL process, lists would be spun-out of their parent articles on an as-needed basis. However, the FL process and the aforementioned achievement mentality do exist, and, because of them, editors spin-out lists before it becomes necessary and even if it probably never will be necessary. To make things even worse, this effect is accumulative. The list discussed here is a prime example. It may have brilliant prose an all, but it's just about as long as the average DYK. Lists as short as this shouldn't even stand alone if the main article was huge. In the absence of notability or a similar system for lists, FLC (whether we like it or not) is the place where, indirectly, the bulk of editors look for guidance. And until the larger community gets its act together and creates more explicit standards than what we have to work with right now, we should at least try to keep the trend away from "let's go chop up some articles into tiny little, FLC suitable pieces." -- If this was a merge discussion or an AfD, I'd vote merge. For that simple reason, I cannot vote keep here. Good raise 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Good. If balancing is an issue, I am sure that those two tables can be made collapsable and then there would be no problem. If people still don't like this, then somebody should create the article History of Condé Nast and put the table there. Nergaal (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove – Tough call, but I do think it fails to meet 3b. The tables are now included in the main Conde Nast article, and their inclusion seems reasonable to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. IMO these pre-emtive spin-offs were what 3b was made for (and the ongoing RfC saga hasn't convinced me otherwise). I think the "it could overwhelm the main article" argument is moot. The main article has existed since 2004 and hasn't been expanded enough to justify spinning-out yet. If someone does do a major re-write and finds that then the section is too weighty, we may consider spining-off again. However saying it that it could happen and that it should be pre-emptively spun out so a list can get a little bronze star is pure speculation (and in my opinion is tantamount to Wikipedia:Gaming the system). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:38, 16 October 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.