Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Simpsons shorts/archive1

The Simpsons shorts
This is a very good list which is well developed and sourced with information about the topic being described. Tarret ''talk 15:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: None of the shorts have their own pages and you need a source for all of the individual episodes. -- Scorpion0422 16:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the shorts should have their own pages and that doesn't mean that this can't be a great list. There is a source for all the facts. It is in Richmond pp. 14-15 as written in the references section. --Maitch 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's part of the FL criteria: 1a1 - brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. I personally dislike that one, but oh well. And each episode should have it's own individual citation because there are descriptions. -- Scorpion0422 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a one-minute short shouldn't have a page of its own. If that makes it fail FLC, then it has to be that way. --Maitch 16:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The shorts not having pages doesn't matter and isn't required to make a good episode list. Gran2 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well; heck yes it matters. 1a1 is probably the most important criterion. The list has to bring together a series of articles. As mentioned, the shorts aren't notable enough for their own, so it will have to remain unfeatured. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 21:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps if we could expand the production info on the page, we couldtry getting it to GA status, like Smallville (season 1). -- Scorpion0422 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if I'm not horribly mistaken, the third possible criteria for 1a is "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles." I believe this is an honest mistake by the above, as there are plenty of featured lists that use this criterion to satisfy 1a. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sephiroth is quite right.  Opposing on that basis is a simple misreading of the criteria.--Pharos 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but would you consider a list of 2 minute shorts to be a "significant topic of study"? -- Scorpion0422 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't honestly know how this information should be treated (if at all), but the current situation is certainly better than each one having it's own article! :)--Pharos 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. --Golbez 00:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)