Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)/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 promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011.

List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)

 * Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status as it meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from PumpkinSky
 * There are a lot of red links here, not just to names but to at least one see also link. FL guideline is that red links should be "minimal". IMHO there are way too many here. Suggest moving them to the talk page til they have articles. Pumpkin Sky   talk  02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" from WP:SAL. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my objection stands. 17% is too much--that's more in "significant portion" land than "minimal" land. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your input. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Similarly, what makes ArenaFan (refs 116 and 126) reliable?
 * ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not one that is as accurate as the ArenaFan references. Also, there's a comprehensive list of AFL players on ArenaFan that lists ~30 AFL players that could be included on this list if ArenaFan can be determined to be a reliable source. I've added the ~30 players in a formatted table on the talk page to be inserted into the existing table in the future. NThomas (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and brought up the validity of www.arenafan.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As of now, the references in question have been removed so this FLC can move forward. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Albacore (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support my niggling issues politely and expediently dealt with, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.