Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Russian Booker Prize/archive4


 * 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 User:The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC).

Russian Booker Prize

 * Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure it meets the criterions. Regards. Tomcat (7) 11:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave my voting until later in order to see what other users have to say. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Question - A large chunk of this article was deleted by Tomcat7 (who also wrote it). Here is how it looked previously. Question: Why was this material deleted? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As expected. You know exactly why.  Please also respond to my question above.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I was to guess, it looks that sub-section content was deleted in order to make the article look more like a list so that it could be acceptable for FLC on stylistic grounds. However Tomcat may have had other reasons for deleting it, so that's why I asked first before reaching conclusions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you know exactly why. Perhaps you should refresh your memory by reading the last derailed FLC for this article.  I do hope you won't be repeating the trick?  If your suggestion is to rename this "List of winners of the Russian Booker Prize" so you can create a stubbish main article (a la Orange Prize), I would hazard a guess that Tomcat would just agree that's the best way forward.  Then you can add back the content that Tomcat removed as a result of your comments in the last FLC.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If Tomcat wants a FLC but not a FAC, that would be a legitimate way, per the MOS definition of a list article and the scope of this article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So let's get on with reviewing the list now shall we?  If you want to create the main article, you are welcome to do so yourself.  Let's now stop derailing this discussion.  As you have done twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem, if that is acceptable to Tomcat and yourself. Do we have consensus? I would like to do the split before the flc closes so there is not an ongoing content dispute. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if you feel the need to roll this crusade out further, can I suggest you do it in a centralised location rather than at individual lists or candidates? It's clear you have a serious personal issue with this type of thing.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah we covered this already, it's legitimate to question during FLC if an article should be "list" or a "main" - it's defined in the MOS - and since there is no mechanism to say all articles of a category are main/list, there is nothing to centrally discuss, it's done per article basis. And btw involvement in one article's FLC and another article's talk page - over a 2 year period - will hardly convince anyone of "crusade", stick to the issue not person WP:NPA. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea is that you have a concept for use of references (to provide critical/artistic commentary) and a lot of lists here use references to back up purely objective and factual claims. As is the case here, as is the case at Nobel.  It's tiresome chasing you around Wikipedia with your version of how to use references when it's obvious a centralised discussion is the way forward.   As for "what is a list", the community continually prove that this is reasonably flexible.  It's unhelpful to attempt to make it otherwise. Please now comment on the content.  I'll shortly be moving this discussion to the talk page because, as you can see below, it's putting others off participating. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OH FOR PETE'S SAKE! This is exactly why I didn't review last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


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