Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year


 * 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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009.

List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year
previous FLC (10:21, 31 July 2008)

Meh, thought about this after the last FLC and realized that it's not really trivial if the Academy is going out of their way to record an official list of occurrences of this stuff. If someone disagrees, that's for AfD and not for FLC. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Concern
 * Whilst I believe the list meets criteria 1–7, that last FLC was withdrawn due to a concern about the lists notability. You state that establishing notability is something for AfD, however as nothing has changed since the last FLC to establish the notability of the list. It needs to be determined if the list is indeed notable because that is part of WP:WIAFL – "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content". This includes WP:N, and if this needs an AfD that should be done before an FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's been specifically (and emphatically) declared in the past that featured review processes are not AfD. Take the article to AfD if there is a notability concern (and FYI, the application of NOTE to lists is up in the air. 99% of lists on real world content are kept unless they fail some other policy in any case). — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that featured review processes were AfD. I said that if notablilty was questionable that an AfD should take place before an FLC. For now I'll wait to see what other reviewers think about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me lax, but I consider an article notable when its topic is covered by multiple third-party reliable sources, as our policies say. This article meets that criteria; therefore, it can and should exist and this FLC should go on. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree anything "covered by multiple third-party reliable sources" is notable. However the only sources that cover the topic&mdash;"nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year"&mdash;are effectively self-published by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. WP:RS notes that "if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so". I am of no doubt that actors nominated for Academy Awards is a notable subject, however I question if the notablility of being "nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year" has been established in any independent reliable sources. I only brought this up as Crzycheetah brought it up at the previous FLC, and he/she not is currently active. If no-one else has a problem with this, I will not oppose on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk)  11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For all practical purposes, 99% of lists that cover real-world content are kept in practically all circumstances at AfD unless they fail say WP:NOT (hopelessly artificial grouping, too broad of a grouping, excessive data, etc.), WP:NOT (phone numbers, streets, etc.), or similar. NOTE is rarely applied in practice to lists in this case. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the actual list, it is very good. The only comment there I have is should "none have two Academy" -> none have won? <b style="color:#E32636;">Rambo's Revenge</b> <b style="color:#FFA500;">(talk)</b>  11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Content looks good and I can't fault it on any of the criteria. Seems fairly solid. PC78 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from 
 * This rule was introduced in 1944, when Barry Fitzgerald received a Best Actor nomination and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance in Going My Way. - the when should be "after"
 * Fixed. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead should state who was the first person and most recent to receive two AA in the same year.-- TRU    CO   20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.-- TRU    CO   22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per criterion 3 the list needs to either be defined in name and scope to limit it just to actors nominated for more than one acting award or it needs to be expanded to include actors who have been nominated in non-acting categories, such as Warren Beatty (nominated for Best Actor and Best Director for Reds and technically also for Best Picture as the producer) and Kevin Costner (nominated in all the same categories for Dances with Wolves, winner for Director and Picture). Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a note to the lead. The official Academy list is just for Academy Awards in acting categories. — sephiroth bcr  <sup style="font-family:Verdana;">( converse ) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.