Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks

List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks
I've basically used the model of two other featured lists (List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks) to design this list. In case people don't think the article is that long, I'll add notes, as done in List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Support I was going to suggest having the Browns pick prior to 96 but if the Browns first-round picks is already a FL it seems a bit piontless. Buc 08:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and technically they are two different franchises. Modell relocated the team to Baltimore, but he kept the original Browns as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. Personally I think it should be the other way round since the Raven are really the Brown with a diffrent name. Buc 17:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose  It's too short to have its own article. The reason this type of lists are created is that the table gets too big to stay in the team's page. I believe that this table is short enough to stay here. There's no need to add notes. I'd even suggest to make the notes at the Carolina list footnotes with references just like in the 2007 NFL Draft article. And getting ahead, I'll answer: Yes, I would oppose the Carolina's list for the same reason if I were around at that time. In case my opinion gets disregarded again, I made some minor edits that I felt were needed. -- Crzycheetah 08:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes are necessary for draft articles. They clarify the circumstances of a particular team's selection in some year. Also, the list will undoubtedly grow in the future, so I don't see the harm of creating a new article just for the first-round draft picks. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that they're not necessary. I meant that they're not going to affect the length of this article. By the way, since you are saying that they're necessary, why aren't you adding them?-- Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Yes, I would oppose the Carolina's list for the same reason if I were around at that time." You know you can nominate FL for removal. Buc 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I am not opposing strong enough to nominate it for removal. Second, my experience here tells me that I am going to have to wait a month or so to get results at FL removals.-- Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Fulfils criteria for promotion. Pulls together info from the body of the main article with the table into a coherent, focused article. Malla  nox  23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Fulfills the criteria.  Cbrown1023   talk   21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As soon as you add the notes and a picture of one of the draftees, I'll reconsider. Also, since this article is going to stay, wouldn't it be better to remove the similar table from Baltimore Ravens and a add a link to this list?-- Crzycheetah 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictures would greatly distort the table. However, I have added the notes, as promised. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a picture is needed on the right side of the lead. Similar to the Carolina list. I believe a fair-use image would be fine. -- Crzycheetah 03:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We can do even better than that. Image:Raypic.jpg a GFDL-licensed image. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, picture added. Nishkid64 (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Good job! Now, it fulfills the criteria. This type of lists should have at least ten years of draft picks, so we'll see the Houston Texans's first round picks list in 5 years. :) -- Crzycheetah 18:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)