Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise/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 The Rambling Man 19:05, 7 July 2011.

List of accolades received by the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise

 * Nominator(s): That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm never good at explaining why these things deserve featured status... just take a look for yourself, if you feel it isn't up to scratch please try to give some advice on what I can do to improve it (or jump in yourself). Thanks a lot. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 05:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – Too many unreliable and questionable sources present for this to meet FL criteria. Even if a few of these prove to be reliable, there's likely too many poor sources for replacing them during the course of an FLC to be practical.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, IMDB is not something that a featured piece of content should be relying on as a primary source. I've seen New York Times pages used as general references in a couple of similar lists; if the New York Times pages on these films have awards listed, they would be much better to use as general references than IMDB.
 * What makes any of the following reliable sources?:
 * http://www.firstshowing.net/ (ref 9)
 * http://www.aintitcool.com/ (ref 10)
 * http://www.reelviews.net/ (ref 12; if reliable, it needs the V capitalized in the publisher field)
 * http://www.iomtoday.co.im/ (ref 13)
 * http://www.altfg.com/ (ref 15; a blog?)
 * http://www.blackflix.com/ (ref 40; do we really need something so questionable to cite Academy Award winners?)
 * http://www.wretchawry.com/ (ref 46)
 * http://moviecitynews.com/ (refs 47, 48, 51, 88)
 * http://www.hollywoodauditions.com/ (ref 49)
 * http://www.montebubbles.net/ (ref 52)
 * http://livedesignonline.com/ (ref 59)
 * http://www.headlinestodays.com/ (ref 68)
 * http://www.lasnoticiasmexico.com/ (ref 69)
 * About.com (ref 76; this definitely isn't reliable)
 * http://www.teenhollywood.com/ (ref 83)
 * http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ (ref 89)
 * http://www.hellomovies.com (ref 100)
 * http://www.denofgeek.com (ref 101)
 * http://www.latinoreview.com (ref 114)

Oppose Per Giants above. I can understand that you have worked really hard on this Cheesydude, but its reliability is really in question with these unreliable sources. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 16:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note these sources have been noted for a week now without any discernible effort to resolve them. Suggest the nomination is withdrawn if there's no indication of interest in fixing these issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.