Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2011 WWE Draft/archive1


 * 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 by Giants2008 21:22, 30 June 2011.

2011 WWE Draft

 * Nominator(s):  T ru  c o  503 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Back with an annual Draft list, modeled after the previous year's list with a few changes. Other than probably grammar or some type of prose problems that come up every year, I feel that this list satisfies the FL criteria.  T ru  c o  503 02:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Numerous prose problems, but mainly... where's the notability? I don't see a single source connected unconnected with WWE, or anything to indicate this is important in any way at all, and not just a non-notable episode of a TV show. Courcelles 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "numerous prose problems" doesn't help any list out, especially it being WP:WEASEL talk. Notability is established on the basis of previous lists. See all the other draft FLs. -- T ru  c o  503 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "two of the draft picks consisted of the same wrestler, John Cena—being selected to SmackDown with the first pick and back to Raw with the last." Yet the list indicates that Sheamus was the last selection. One example out of at least a dozen before I stopped reading. And I was trying to give you the courtesy of time to find independent refs before I sent this straight to AFD. As it stands, if there's not actual coverage from independent sources, not only should this not be featured, it shouldn't even be an article. Courcelles 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment okay, there is an issue with notability that must be resolved. All references are WWE or Tweets from WWE employees (which presumably are as fictional as the WWE in any case). Does anyone outside the WWE believe this event to be notable in any way? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've removed sources from WWE and have replaced them with sources from other reliable third-party websites. -- T ru  c o  503 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Last, but not least, are we comfortable using Twitter as a source? The social networking sites as a group aren't the greatest in the world for encyclopedia purposes, and they don't seem to be adding much to the section they're in anyway.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The only reason its here is to verify the comments made by the Superstars, just as WWE advertised on television that twitter had their comments.-- T ru  c o  503 03:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this one up in case in any other reviewers want to offer their thoughts.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, leaning towards agreeing with Courcelles. This should be archived, and a copyedit over at GOCE should be done. Once that's done this shouldn't do too bad on the 2nd try. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.