Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xanadu Houses/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [1].
Review commentary
edit| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this featured article for review because of this discussion. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should we even have an FAR and AFD going at the same time, even though both its status as FA and its overall notability are in question? I think we should play out the AFD first.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Houses. WP:NN and WP:WIAFA are entirely separate; the notability tag placed on this article is unwarranted; whether it deserves FA status is a separate question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that at least one editor is doubting the notability, I hardly think the {{Notability}} tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This was listed at FAR and AFD at the same time; AFD closed as keep. My concerns re: the notability still stand. The sources are very thin and the article clearly not of FA quality. I'd barely even call it anything more than start class. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheesh, TPH, you must be kidding. You closed the AFD yourself, and then come here and still question its notability? That isn't wise; why'd you close the AFD then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because it was a snow keeper, and TPH has learned not to fight consensus.
Meanwhile, back in the land of on-topic, I have not yet notified anyone of the FAR. The primary contributor seems inactive.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; consensus is clearly against me, but I still say that the notability is tenuous at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps e-mail Wackymacs, just in case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because it was a snow keeper, and TPH has learned not to fight consensus.
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability feels okay to me, three independent newspaper articles spread over three years. (Pretty flash in the pan, but not a single incident). More troubling is the SELF/VANITY angle in Acropolis books, which should be sent to RS/N for a detailed investigation of their publishing quality in the early 1980s. "For almost five decades, Acropolis Books has been a respected publisher of non-fiction books. In 1995, Acropolis started to reintroduce out-of-print classical mystical literature, and began publishing works of the 20th Century mystic, Joel Goldsmith, whose teachings have helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world grasp the eternal principles of spiritual living." The second statement puts lie to the first in my mind. ... I'm deeply uncomfortable with a FA being sourced from the creator's account of his creation. Personally I'd claim Author-Creator is self for anything but an impeccable academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is there, I think - but sourcing is an issue. The limited number of sources (and footnotes) was noted as an issue in 2005, when the article was promoted, and there has been little improvement. Couple that with the fact that sourcing requirements have gotten stricter, and it's not a good picture. I'll see if I can find anything else to add source-wise. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, no one is working on the issue raised above, no edits besides mine and TPHs for days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for lack of secondary sources and lack of progress in article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Concerns about standards of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.