Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks/archive2


 * 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 17:54, 16 January 2008.

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks
previous FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007) This was failed by a bot because of one oppose which I'm trying resolve. Buc (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC) On top of this, most of your transaction notes don't even have a citation now.-- Crzycheetah 07:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC) It's not being overlooked, I looked everywhere for another sourse to use and I couldn't find anything. So I'm to have to sick with what I've got. Buc (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment First off, it wasnt failed by a bot . Secondly, I added two of the three photos in question and will concede the linking (although I still think the page is way over-linked).  If this compromise is ok, I will feel secure in supporting.  Also, for future reference, don't renominate one day after a list failed after having made no changes to the list.  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 20:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well regardless one O is not enough to deserve a fail. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't. Buc (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Recuse I'll let others figure this one out. (Bole2, Please do not break my comments by adding comments in between my sentences, its annoying) Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  I don't think n-c-systems is a reliable source. It seems like it is run by a guy who researches and provides all the info in his site. I mean he basically does the same thing that we do, but without providing references. I realize that many FLs already use that website as a reference, but there are so many nominations pop up that it's difficult to check the verifiability of the references in such short time. Unless that person is an expert in NFL whose opinion is valuable by NFL analysts, we should not trust him and his website. I believe this website is good to use as a guide, but not as a reference. If/When you remove these citations, your transactions are going to be left uncited; therefore, I oppose featuring this list.
 * Can't find anouther sourse for the transactions. Should I just remove these transaction notes. Buc (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By removing transaction notes, this list will no longer be comprehensive.-- Crzycheetah 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't find another ref for them. So if I'm going to keep them in that the ref there going to have to have. Buc (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand what you were trying to say. I'll just mention that lack of refs should not be a reason to overlook unsourced info.-- Crzycheetah 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My oppose can be addressed by researching the archives of well known sports newspapers and agencies. Please take a look at 2001 NFL Draft and 2007 NFL Draft and you could see how each transaction is sourced.-- Crzycheetah 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes as I said before I've looked. There is nothing on the Saints offical site about this. There are a few news reports on drafts going back to 2000 but nothing eles. The best I can do is this which just says who the pick was aquired from. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of your notes already do that anyway and still left unsourced; for example, notes ##2,3,5 and so on. On the side note, I would also like to know how the Saints got #26 pick. Since they traded away their 1st round pick and not getting another one in return, how did it happen? -- Crzycheetah 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I will work on incorporating the above links into the text. But that's all I can do. The only other thing I can think is re-pharing the notes to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" Buc (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First thing that has to be done is to format the references for the footnotes, preferably using cite web. I still notice you have that n-c as a reference, which needs to be replaced.-- Crzycheetah 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but you're ok with my seggestion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the "aquired from x" part is sourced, yes I'm fine with that.-- Crzycheetah 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Not as good as I would have liked, but it's a lot better than it was first nominated.-- Crzycheetah 22:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you have liked? I'm always looking to improve thing if I can. Buc (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "It is unknown how this pick was acquired" sentence, I just don't like the fact that the info is not complete. Also, the transaction notes should have been more professionally stated, something like "Saints traded this pick to the Team X for that pick/player on Date", as I have done in the 2003 NBA Draft. I realize that due to insufficient sources, it is very hard to provide complete information about the subject without violating WP:OR. -- Crzycheetah 07:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind for future nominations. Buc (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - nom claims it failed because of one oppose, when in reality it had one oppose, one neutral, and nom's support - not exactly a landslide. This was done one day after what he terms a "bot closing" when in reality, 2 weeks without any supports is a strong indicator that it's not quite featured material yet. My personal vote, by the way, is oppose, but it shouldn't matter, as this should be closed entirely on procedural grounds. If you're "trying to resolve" the oppose, Buc, then actually WAIT until you've resolved it before renominating. --Golbez (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already resolved. Buc (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What was resolved? Treat your voters with more respect. --Golbez (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean but yes it was. Buc (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When he says "resolved," he means that the editor in question (me) has recused himself from voting because of a failure of the nom to try and come to a middle ground. Just needed to clarify that.  Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Well Referenced, concise, informative introduction.
 * the only thing I would change, but don't know how, is to have the reggie bush image in the top-center of the big white space instead of toward the right side.

Good work. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment about canvassing Not to discredit any past voter or future voter, but there has been canvassing, here, here, and here. Buc please just let the nomination go its route, try to make the list better based on the suggestions, and everything will be fine.  And in the future do not canvass individual people.  A friendly note on a WikiProject talk page or something like that is ok, but we want objective suggestions to improve each article.   Gonzo fan2007  talk ♦ contribs 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * These nothing stopping poeple also giving feedback when they show support. Even if this paases I will still be looking to impove it. Buc (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You said "You appear to be an active member of the NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs support votes in order to pass. If you feel it is a FL could you please show support. Thanks for any help in advance." In which you clearly stated that it still needed support and you clearly asked the person to support the list. Even if that was not your intention, you phrased in a way that isn't appropriate. Asking for people to review a list is okay, but you clearly were asking for support. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if they felt it deserved it. Most people have enough sence not to support something just because they're asked to. Buc (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment *sigh* another FLC tainted by canvassing. Buc, you would do well to learn not to argue with everyone who posts a negative comment, and to listen and learn from what people are saying. What if we turned your request upside down: "You appear to be an active member of the anti-NFL WikiProject. So I'm just letting you know that List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks is currently a FLC that still needs oppose votes in order to fail. If you feel it is not an FL could you please show your opposition. Thanks for any help in advance." Does it still sound neutral, or do you think I'm canvassing for some opposition? This is not a vote. You don't seem to understand how FLC works when you don't understand why it failed last time, or why it shouldn't have been immediately re-nominated. You can't keep nominating till you get lucky. The "nc-systems" reference must go and I think sportsecyclopedia.com looks like a one-man-and-his-dog outfit too. "nflhistory.net" doesn't seem to work. If you relied on those refs for anything, it must go too (you can't just claim that the source is the best you can find, WP:V is policy). Colin°Talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would I can't people to oppose my nomination? Buc (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I will add a closing statement. The article has received two supports amongst over 7 commentators, over 18 days. As such, given the concerns over the references, and the lack of support, I am closing this as no consensus. Woody (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing statement
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.