Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/April 2009

History of the National Hockey League

History of the National Hockey League

5 articles

1917–1942

1942–1967

1967–1992

1992–present

This featured topic nomination comes as a result of nearly a year's worth of research and work, and covers the history of the NHL from it's founding in 1917 to the present day. I am nominating also on behalf of Maxim and Scorpion0422, who were major contributors to the project, and the entire ice hockey wikiproject, of which most active members have contributed in some way. We believe that this series meets the FT criteria, and look forward to all feedback. Resolute 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Zginder 2009-04-06T15:20Z (UTC)
  • The way I see it the history of the league starts with the league. Zginder 2009-04-16T20:25Z (UTC)

• Oppose - good start, but:
  1. I think you're missing an article on pre-NHL-founding history, which should probably be an overview of earlier events and leagues. Looking at {{Evolution of the NHL}}, to only include the history of the NHL proper, and not its pre-history, seems like an oversight. Indeed the pre-history is the only section of the History of the National Hockey League article not to have its own subarticle in this topic. There were over 30 years of predecessor tournaments before the NHL itself, and the Stanley Cup started in 1893, 24 years before this topic!
     To say that this early stuff isn't the history of the NHL itself but of earlier things would in my opinion be a somewhat arbitrary argument. Okay, things before 1917 didn't have the rubber stamp of the NHL name, but they are just as much a part of the history of the NHL as stuff that has come since.
  2. Timeline of the National Hockey League should either be included here or redirected to History of the National Hockey League#Timeline (it could probably be expanded to a full featured list but as it stands it just matches that section of the lead article - I don't really mind which you do)
  3. More minor now but Original Six seems to be a bit similar to History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) - perhaps a merge/redirect?
  4. There are a few other articles I could mention for inclusion but I think they could all be subtopiced so don't need inclusion.

-- rst20xx (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• The first article (1917-1942) contains pre-NHL history that is relevant to the NHL in the background section. The "Evolution of the NHL" template is a horrible template that really should be renamed or deleted, as it has nothing at all to do with the evolution of the NHL. It is an old template that haphazardly links a bunch of disparate leagues together with no real link, other than the fact they existed. The 30+ years of organized hockey that predated the NHL is related to the history of ice hockey, not the National Hockey League. To my view, it would be like trying to argue the Boer War was related to World War I.
• Based on the new FL criteria, I do not believe that the timeline list is featurable (3b - content forks), as these articles already contain the full timeline. I'll redirect for now as I tend to agree it is superflorous.
• The Original Six article likely is a good merge/redirect candidate, and is something I'll discuss with the Hockey project, though I don't think its existence should affect this FTC nom much. just some cleanup we'll have to do regarding other articles.

• Appreciate the feedback, and I hope these explanations/actions are satisfactory. Resolute 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  OK I'm satisfied on the timeline and the Original Six, but still not happy with the pre-history. (1917-1942) doesn't contain that much more on the prehistory than the main History article does - maybe about double, but still nowhere near a full articles' worth. I think there is more continuity between pre-NHL and NHL itself than you are trying to portray - for example, the NHL was basically the NHA refounded in order to drop one team, and even adopted the same constitution as the NHA had. The (1917-1942) article demonstrates really well that this is the case. Indeed, the NHA is also given prominence in {{NHL topics}}. So as I said, it's just a re-rubber stamping. And yet the NHA, apart from its changing into the NHL, is only covered in the "background" section of the (1917-1942) article, its history is not covered in more depth than that. Every one of the other subarticles has such a background section on what came before, too, going into just as much depth.

  But the NHA's history was starts with the CHA, which itself was a refounded ECHA, which was a successor of the CAHL, which was a successor of the AHAC, which was the very first league of them all. Some of the other leagues in {{Evolution of the NHL}} may be less relevant to the history, but there is a strong thread there going all the way back to the start, and these leagues aren't explored very much in the proposed topic, beyond explaining how one begat the next etc.

  You compare the change from one to the other with the change from the (Second?) Boer War to WWI, two wars with a clear 12 year break between them in completely different parts of the world and with only one participant in common. Whereas I think the NHL is so dominant that the history of competitive ice hockey in North America is in many ways the history of the NHL. Okay, not all the leagues in {{Evolution of the NHL}} are well related, but a significant number are, and this is further reflected by the fact that many of these pre-NHL leagues are in a category, Category:Pre-National Hockey League. And they don't seem to be in there in order to reflect their age, because they're also in Category:Defunct ice hockey leagues. Seems to me they're in there to reflect their relationship with the later NHL. All the ones I mentioned are in there, many of the more minor, less related ones are not - rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Pre-National Hockey League, like the template, seems not accurate to me, and I might just CfD that one as redundant to Category:Defunct ice hockey leagues. Like the template, the category is based around NHL-centric thinking on a sport that predates the NHL by decades. The fault, in my mind, is in the fact that these old templates and categories were never cleaned up. Ditto List of pre-NHL seasons. They are arbitrary and argue a continuity that does not exist.

• The key point you mention is that the NHA's history begins with the CHA, not the NHL's history. I think you inadvertently state my point for me wrt the Boer War (1899-1901) and WWI - over a decade apart, only one common participant. Well, the time lapse between the CHA and predecessors and the NHL is about a decade, and only one common participant - Ottawa. In fact, the NHA was founded by teams that were not accepted into the CHA, so I would argue the NHL's prehistory extends no farther back than the NHA itself, as the NHA was a parallel league rather than a successor league. Personally, I think what you are asking for is an entirely different topic, which would be the history of ice hockey, or perhaps more accurately, the history of major professional ice hockey. The NHL is only a part of that topic, which would encompass the NHA, the CHA and its predecessors, the PCHA, WCHL, WHA and perhaps other leagues that never even got off the ground. I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel that pre-NHL history is especially relevant to the scope of this series beyond how the NHL was formed, and why. Resolute 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well I think you inadvertently state my point when, in arguing that there's this break between the CHA and NHA, you throw into light the lack of a break between the NHA and NHL, thus leading to the conclusion that even if we forget all the rest of the prehistory, at the very least National Hockey Association should be included in the topic - rst20xx (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Except that what is relevant of the NHA's history is already in the first article. The NHL's history begins in 1917, not 1909. Seriously, do we insist on a full history of England and France when discussing the history of Canada? No, Canada is viewed independently. This is much the same. The NHA is not the NHL. There is a link between the two, however, and that link is explained. Again, I do not believe you have explained why hockey's history prior to the formation of the NHL is relevant beyond the formation of the NHL itself. Resolute 04:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Only one team changed between NHA and NHL, I think to argue that it's not all relevant is somewhat arbitrary, and looking at the rubber stamp of the official name. Oh, and History of Canada clearly has sections on New France, Canada under British Imperial control (1764-1867), Post-Confederation Canada (1867-1914), Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years, etc. So the history of what became the state of Canada (England and France did not become Canada), but before the state of Canada existed. You might have a stronger argument with the CHA and the like, but the NHA certainly became the NHL - rst20xx (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• The NHA became the NHL, yes, but it was not the NHL. The reasons for the dissolution of the NHA and founding of the NHL are already included. Resolute 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I guess my point is that I just don't see the history of other leagues, no matter how closely related, to be part of the core topic itself. To continue with analogies, its like saying a topic discussing the eight (or nine) planets is incomplete because the moon isn't included. The NHA/pre-history is something of a subplot, as would be something like labour history of the NHL. Something that could be added as part of a supplimental nomination, but is not necessary as part of a complete topic itself, imo. Resolute 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to have hit a stalemate. :o) I personally believe that a verifiable and accurate version is in the articles. What I really feel is that the origins of the NHL are as nebulous as the origins of ice hockey, ie the line's really blurred on professionals, and I don't think Original Research and similar assumptions need to be scattered all over the article. The leagues are related, but this is the history of the NHL, and you could on, and on, and on about minor leagues that were related to a bit bigger leagues, that themselves (...) and somehow leads to the Windsor Hotel in 1917. I didn't write that part, but/and I'm satisfied with how it stands presently. Maxim_(talk) 11:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - OK, maybe you are right about most of the pre-leagues, but the NHL was simply a rebranded NHA, and so I do not think that excluding the latter leaves a comprehensive topic. And we haven't really talked about the WHA, which was merged with the NHL. On top of this, {{Evolution of the NHL}} and Category:Pre-National Hockey League still misleadingly "haphazardly link a bunch of disparate leagues together with no real link" (as you put it), you haven't done anything about them. To have a template in the articles of your topic contradicting what you are saying here suggests to me that the topic does not deserve to be called featured, either because you are wrong and there needs to be another article, or because the template is wrong and needs fixing. Additionally, Original Six is still a separate article - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

---

• Reopened - per discussions at my talk page, I now believe closed this prematurely, sorry to the nominators. Wider input would be welcomed - rst20xx (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I don't think so much pre-NHL coverage as Rst20xx, but i agree that more needs to be said about the NHA and and other laegues that made a large impact on the formation. I would be satisfied if this were done by expanding the background section of the main article, with summary sections, or a separate GA if there is enough (non-synthesised) info. I understand wanting to delimit the article putely to the official history, but a bit more background would be helpful to us readers with almost no knowledge of US sports or hockey.YobMod 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Truth be told, no other league made a large impact on formation. I could slightly expand on the demise of the PCHA/WCHL and the influx of players it caused, but that's about all that would be relevant. The WHA certainly had a larger impact on the NHL, and that is covered in depth in the 1970s. Resolute 12:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose/Please discuss further I have been contacted about the Evolution of the NHL by Resolute. The template may give an over-indication of the importance of those other leagues. I think we should use that template for something more like Evolution of Pro Hockey in North America, or something similarly titled and have another possibly for Early Ice hockey in North America. This is basically up for discussion.

Except for the NHA, I don't believe that those other leagues are necessary components for the History of the NHL. However, I would agree that the NHA is a necessary component. This is -contrary- to what the NHL itself considers its history, though. A policy dating back to the inception of the league is that the NHA was a different league, contrary to the evidence, in what must be a way of distancing itself from the infighting of the NHA and the subsequent lawsuits. But all of the league structures, owners, rules, trophies were continued from the NHA. The very first meeting of the NHL owners even states this. I think it's a renaming, but that's a POV.

The other league that had some influence on the NHL was the PCHA, which innovated in ice hockey, the rules were adopted by the NHL, and it was 'absorbed' by the NHL. The PCHA is not really 'pre-history' of the NHL, and is covered in the first section of the 'NHL History of'. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The challenge, I think, is that we are introducing our own POV into the equasion. Nearly every history I have considers the NHL to have begun in 1917, as does the NHL itself. Certainly the dissolution of the NHA was shady in how it led to the creation of the NHL, but I do feel that is fairly portrayed. That being said, we might add a paragraph simply noting the brief history of the NHA, i.e.: its founding, the Canadiens being an original team, and the like. I'd probably want to remove the minutes sub-section though to help maintain article balance. Resolute 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The NHA organization overlaps the NHL. Frank Calder was president of both organizations at the same time. The NHA's lawsuits were paid for by the NHL. The NHL owners retained membership as directors of the NHA. The owner of the Wanderers participated in meetings of the NHA even after he folded his NHL team. These leagues are interwoven. That is not a POV, that is a fact. You come to a conclusion based on the facts. I conclude it was a legal tactic to remove Livingstone. They did not intend to end the NHA at first. The NHL was supposed to be temporary. Alaney2k (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and in fact the background makes the links pretty clear, imo. However, legally the NHA and NHL were different leagues, and other than Deceptions and Doublecrosses, I don't know of any histories that don't consider them to be different leagues. We can argue the ties, which is done here, but to say the NHL was simply the NHA rebranded is POV, no matter how confident we are in that POV. At any rate, unless you get to it first, I'll likely add a paragraph on it this weekend. Resolute 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing from the pov that the NHL is the NHA re-branded. I'm not saying that the NHL started legally earlier. I just think that the NHA article should be part of the History of the NHL series. I think we owe it to the topic to include the NHA in the series formally. The NHA holds no similar links to previous organizations, so you shouldn't link back further, but the NHA and NHL are interwoven. My other comments about the renaming are just that. I have been working on the NHA article to improve its content and citations, looking to get it to GA status. Most of the NHA seasons are complete too. As for the books, well they choose what to write their content on. (Maybe the NHL funds the books and has influence, I don't know.) The same for here. But we should make the determination independently. Like I've marked, it's a weak oppose, if there is consensus, I'll respect that. (I am not the person who brought up the NHA, but I do agree with the comments.) If I get the NHA up to GA status, then we could always review that then. Alaney2k (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we should not make the determination independently. That is original research and POV. We judge by what secondary sources say, and secondary sources say the NHA was a different league. In my view, you are placing undue weight on the NHA's histor, the vast majority of which is irrelevant to the NHL. Resolute 16:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not OR, it's not POV to say that the NHA is relevant to the NHL history. Why do you keep pushing that? I could agree that it is undue weight. However, you've not convinced me to leave the NHA out. I think that there's enough relevant info to warrant a 'slot' in this history topic. Alaney2k (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - It is OR, it is very much POV to make the link you want to make. Yes the NHA obviously had an impact on the NHL which is already mentioned in the first article. Secondary sources say they are different leagues, which is what we have to ollow. Unfortunately when you mentioned you will bow to consensus this is FAC so your oppose alone can kill it even if you were outnumbered. This is the history of the NHL itself, not of the factors that drove to the NHL, or the history of professional hockey. The NHA while related in a way to the NHL was not part of the NHL itself and this is a history of the NHL itself. It has a clear beginning of 1917. -Djsasso (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, we're talking about the History of the NHL series, not when the NHL legally started. I'm not disputing that the NHL legally started in 1917. I'm not the only person to make points about the pre-history... (I'm working on cleaning up some of the categories and templates that are contentious. But it's not done yet.) I said it was a weak oppose, (should I say 'suggest improvement'?) meaning I think it is very relevant to include the NHA article. I think it would make the History series better. What's wrong with that? As for my comments about the NHL is a renamed NHA, it's just that, comments... That's just a tactic to diminish my other points, please stay with discussing the merits of including the NHA or not. Alaney2k (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You could just say "Neutral". But I think this whole nomination has gotten a little off track. The only real question here is does this proposed topic meet the criteria or not. My opinion is that it meets the featured topic criteria as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't agree with that, I'd say that the importance of the NHA determines whether it merits inclusion or not. I think what's going on here is a debate as to whether it's sufficiently important to need including. Although it might have got a little bit mud-slingy.

I don't think including it would be POV to add it though, you could equally argue excluding it would be POV for exactly the inverse reasons. (And yet if it WAS included I don't think anyone would vote oppose on this topic!)

I guess if you're going to debate along POV lines, a more interesting question would be as to which is the default position. I think as the NHA certainly has some role, indeed a significant one, the default would be to include it. As I said, if it was included, I don't think anyone would oppose, and I think this somewhat reflects that the default position would be inclusion - rst20xx (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure if I agree that nobody would oppose. You could make a good argument that just including 1 of the pre-NHL conference articles would constitute cherry picking. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The criteria than I am concerned about is 'covering the topic comprehensively'. Under that criteria, -I- would add the NHA article.

There is not any need to go further back or to other leagues. The NHA is the league that was necessary for the NHL to occur. The other pro leagues were minor or regional in aspect, and other than the WHA, pro leagues started after 1917 have continued to be regional or minor. The NHA was the first to try to be 'major league'. It threw away the prior aspects of community ownership of clubs and instituted a league of pro hockey owners. The NHL founding is less of a change in the history of ice hockey, but the league has grown to dominate pro hockey.

The template 'evolution of the nhl' has implied that all of the other leagues are essential to the topic. I would disagree with that. The topic they are really covering is 'Evolution of Pro Ice Hockey in North America', and 'Early Amateur Ice hockey', and I am working to plan that out. The evo of the nhl template has sort of grown organically as we have built the articles of the time period prior to the NHL. I did not originate it, but I am sure that it was not planned out, like the History of series has been. Alaney2k (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, Rreagan, so it's cherrypicking to include one and not others? Surely by that logic it's also cherrypicking not to include any! Or maybe you think the NHL histories are more notable/relevant than the early leagues, so it's okay to cherrypick just the NHL histories out by the ol' levels of notability argument. But equally, the NHA is more notable/relevant than the other early leagues, so I don't see why it's any less acceptable to take just that one out of the bunch too - rst20xx (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can "cherry pick" out of the topic everything but the NHL histories articles because the topic is "History of the NHL." That's called the topic's scope. If you broaden the scope beyond just the history of the NHL to any of the pre-NHL leagues then why wouldn't you have to include them all? Ah yes, now we're back to the notable/relevant thing you spoke of. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Honestly, I am still waiting to hear a good argument as to why an article on the NHA has to be included. Legally, it was a different league. Historically, it is considered a different league. It falls outside the scope of the history of the National Hockey League, except as how the demise of the NHA, and the root causes of that, led to the formation of the NHL. This is covered in depth in the first article, satisfying the comprehensive aspect, imnsho. The NHA is a tangent to this topic, not a part of it. Resolute 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)) Because even the NHL includes its origins in its history book. I borrowed the book "The Official Illustrated NHL History" (2006) by Arthur Pincus from the library. The first 15 pages after the Introduction are about the origins (from 1875), the NHA and PCHA. It talks about the re-organization (that's the word he uses (pg. 20)) of the NHA into the NHL. It doesn't omit that Livingstone was lied to, either, or that the NHL was started so as to omit Livingstone. It's official, it has a Bettman introduction. According to the book, Pincus worked with the NHL for six years. The NHL did not start from nothing. Several of the early NHL stars played for the same teams in the NHA. It's a continuity, not a clean break. Alaney2k (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. I've taken the time to read the arguments above and look at the articles. As stated above, this is a topic on the history of the NHL, and the NHL officially began in 1917. Sure, some pre-history information is needed, but I find the background information in the lead article and the 1917-42 article more than adequate. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal What about an article entitled 'Founding of the NHL', of 'Background and Founding of the NHL', which starts with the Background and Founding sections in the 1917- article and expands that? It would explain in more detail the relevance of the prior leagues, if any. Some are probably not too relevant and more appropriate in Early Amateur/Early Pro Hockey type topics. It could expand on what the NHL used from the NHA, including rules, trophies. Would that be acceptable to everyone? Is it necessary now and if not, would it be a problem to add later? (Don't know all of the rules of this process) Alaney2k (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of prior leagues is in the history of ice hockey, not the history of the NHL. Only the demise of the NHA holds any real relevance to the NHL, and that is already covered. Resolute 18:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Alaney2k, this proposal is originally what I suggested. Most of it would deal with the NHA itself though so adding the NHA I think is an acceptable alternative to adding this. But ultimately yeah, in my opinion one of the two articles (Background and Founding of the NHL or NHA) needs adding at this stage. Certainly topics can add articles later and many do but the topics also need to be comprehensive when first promoted, they can't be built after promotion, and I don't think this one is sufficiently so, without the extra article - rst20xx (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll check up over the week-end if anyone else has something to say about this. I think I have contributed enough to the discussion. I suggest we need more input? Alaney2k (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, appeals for wider input went out on the 20th... rst20xx (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We might as well just close as no consensus at this point. Obviously you are not going to convince me that adding irrelevancies to the topic is useful, and I'm not going to convince you that adding an article on a different league is out of scope. The founding of the NHL is already covered, and while I respect Alaney's work on the early history of hockey, I do not feel there is any way he can write such an article without introducing a very heavy dose of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Given the other commenters are split, and the length of time this has been open, we may as well just agree to disagree now, and perhaps revisit the topic in the future. Resolute 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth... I can't speak for others, but I would be happy if you just did the NHA article, that seems to me to be far and away the most important of the historical connections and would avoid any OR and SYNTH concerns you might have (though IMO Alaney2k makes some pretty good arguments over here about why there is a bit more to it than that even) - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - OK, per your request for withdrawal, I shall do this, but only because you have requested it, and because Arctic gnome's editing is a little bit sporadic of late - rst20xx (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• No prob, though I'd say it was more an acceptance of no consensus than a withdrawl, but that is just semantics, really.  ;) I do understand Alaney's argument, even if I personally disagree with it. His concepts revolve around the competitive history of the sport itself far more than any evolutionary path to the NHL. Resolute 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Megadeth

Megadeth

3 articles

Discography

Band members

In the template above, we have three featured works. Those who speak about the heavy metal band Megadeth. The first tells the story of this band; the second talks about the development of their albums, both commercial and popular; and the last is a summary about its members, and the work done during their membership. I Believe I Can Fly that its meets the featured topic criteria. Cannibaloki 03:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks great and covers everything. I understand the list of members precluding inclusion of the individual member articles, but if all the 4 current members are brought to GA in the future, i think they would be better added in to this topic, rather than sub-topiced (just noting for the future).YobMod 09:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - no awards and nominations article, no tours article, surely both merit existence for such a successful band? When compared with the NIN topic, or even the failed Metallica nom, I find this lacking - rst20xx (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  ...Although having said that, FLC is undergoing a bit of an upheaval at the moment and this may mean an awards and noms list doesn't merit existence. But at any rate, I think my oppose is valid until things have settled down over there, at which point I'll reassess - rst20xx (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  Regardless, I don't see their awards in any of the three articles. Gary King (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do they have any awards? they aren't very good :-D. Actually, i assumed that a passed FA meant that it was comprehensive. If it doesn't mention awards, why is it a FA? I mostly find artist nomination lists to be a bit useless - don't they only exist as easy ways to get FLs (and hence FTs?). If they are not anywhere in the topic, it would not be comprehensive, but now i see lots of mentions of grammys and other awards throughout the text. Is a separate list required for FT, if the awards are already in the chronological history of the main article?YobMod 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A table for the awards and nominations can be created and added into the main artist's article. Gary King (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... Cannibaloki 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC);  Done Cannibaloki 20:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What, they've only ever been nominated for 2 awards? Really? rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be a few minor ones but I'm not surprised that for a band like this one, those are the only ones. Gary King (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gary King, please explain your comment. Cannibaloki 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why, do I have to? In any case, I searched for more awards for the band but couldn't come up with anything. Also, I made my comment primarily because this isn't a mainstream band and so won't receive as much recognition as, say, Britney Spears. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, strange... Cannibaloki 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The new FL criteria are in place. If the list of awards now in Megadeth is comprehensive, then Cannibaloki was right to put it there - a separate list would not pass the muster. However, this may not be the case with a list of tours - rst20xx (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support although usually more articles get into such topics, these three are enough since the others don't exist. igordebraga ≠ 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist! rst20xx (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- IDK, but is there enough information and content to warrant separate articles for tour dates, and the other subarticles that rst mentioned?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support I have to disagree with Rst20xx on this one. Zginder 2009-04-03T20:34Z (UTC)

  Oh, come on. There hasn't been any attempt at all to cover the tours anywhere in this topic. Even if the tours don't merit a separate list, they should at least be covered in a list-like fashion in the Megadeth article itself - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  Since when is a band about the tours? Zginder 2009-04-06T15:25Z (UTC)

• Oppose per rst. Nergaal (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• I don't think that every band needs separate articles on tours, awards, and cultural impact, however if these articles are absent they should at least each have their own section in the main article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - this topic has more votes of support than oppose, but does not appear to have consensus. Sorry this took so long, it should have been closed quite a while ago - rst20xx (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums

Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums, lists of

13 articles

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1993, 1994 and 1995

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2002

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2004

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2005

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2006

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2007

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2008

I am submiting this lists because I think it could be a Featured Topic. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the main list needs to be good or featured (I guess it'd be a featured list?). Sorry, this wasn't made explicitly clear in the prior discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions#Top Latin Albums, but criterion 3.a) at WP:FT? spells it out plainly - rst20xx (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Any sugestion? Should I submit the main article to review? Change the main article? Jaespinoza (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to withdraw this nom, get the main article to FL, and then renominate. I don't think there are any other suitable articles you can replace this one for, and this one doesn't come under WP:FT? criterion 3.c) as the "limited subject matter" clause is only intended for lists that are too short to become featured, which this one isn't - rst20xx (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try again next time. How can I withdraw this nom? Jaespinoza (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn - I'll do it. Could luck for next time - rst20xx (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

  PS can't believe I forgot to mention it before but for next time, you should include List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2009. Obviously it can't become an FL yet but as a result you can include it with just a PR instead - rst20xx (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)