Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 23:14, 8 June 2011.

List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

 * Notified: Gonzo fan2007, WikiProject Green Bay Packers, WikiProject National Football League

This list was promoted in July 2008, well before 3b was made part of the FL criteria. As almost all of the list's contents can be found at List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, I believe this violates that criterion. A similar page, List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was rejected recently at FLC for the same reason. It's a shame in some ways since the list itself is in reasonable shape, but old FLs shouldn't get a free pass when standards change.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no reservations towards delisting this FL if the community feels that it is an unnecessary fork of a larger list. I obviously have not been here for quite sometime and things have changed somewhat, so I will not be arguing for or against past issues ;)  I do want to say that it troubles me that this list would be delisted merely because of the "unnecessary" part of 3b.  When does a fork become necessary?  How many players would need to get into the Hall of Fame for it to become necessary to create smaller lists based on teams?  How many Packers would need to be in the Hall for a separate article to become necessary?  Lastly, I also see this as a very practical issue for our readers, as I am sure many people ask google Who the Green Bay Packers Hall of Famers are and thankfully Wikipedia is able to provide a high quality list that specifically answers their question, and does not contain additional info that is not relevant.  Also, is there going to be an AFD for this list and its siblings too, since they may be deemed "unnecessary"?  Well that is my 2 cents, hope everyone is doing well!  Cheers!  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist per 3b. To answer Gonzo, I would say if a section fills up more than a page (my screen is 1000px), it should be split from the main article. It also depends on what the section is about. If you search Vancouver Canucks captains, the first choice is obviously the Vancouver Canucks Wikipedia article. It also has a "jump to", which allows you to jump to the "Team captains" section of the article. AFD isn't necessary because the article will be redirected to the section of the main article. -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   04:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Welcome back, Gonzo! -- Cheetah  (talk)  07:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It does not violate 3b as it is not unnecessary. Well, I made a similar list long time ago about the Dodgers and recently it went to AFD: the list was kept. As a result of that AFD the most recent consensus is these lists are necessary. RE K. Annoyomous: It's going to take a long time to find all Packers in the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. There's no section for "Green Bay Packers" in that list.
 * Main article is the Green Bay Packers. My apologies on that confusion. -- K.Annoyomous   (talk)   07:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cheetah, although this is just a temporary break ;) « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment To expand a little, my main issue is that this list has a defined scope, is large enough (26 items), has a good possibility to expand in the future (Brett Favre comes to mind), and seems like a pretty necessary and logical fork of the main list. I feel like as long as there are no other issues, this list should be Kept (altho I am biased as the creator of the list ;).  I imagine we will need a few more opinions tho to find a consensus.  Cheers,  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I don't see a major issue here. The Packers article is huge and really could use shortening. The only thing I would prefer to see is more in the lead about the players, and less about the Packers' franchise. Then it's just technical issues (if any, perhaps check ref 12 for dead-ness) to worry about, I've already done the dashes...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the link. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't want to badger any of the commenters, but TRM among others agreed with my 3b oppose at the FLC for the Bears list, which is longer than this one and also has a lengthy main article. Why was that list considered a fork and not this one? If I'd nominated the Bears list I'd be thinking that I got a raw deal. Also, I don't see where necessity fits into 3b (the content already being reasonably included in the main Hall of Famers list goes right at the last part of the criterion) and don't necessarily think AfD should be a measuring stick (how many people there are thinking about FL criteria when they decide a list's fate?).  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 20:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, perhaps I'm confused then. That article was rejected as FL on grounds of 3b vs the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees article.  I was judging this article against the main Packers article, as I noted in my comment.  There seem to be a number of "main" articles here, hence the confusion perhaps?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A reasonable length spinout of the article which is not considered a content fork per the criteria (a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage). The Bears list was handled wrong in the previous discussion.  Royal broil  04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and note that, IMO, we got the Bears list wrong in relation to 3b. Courcelles 01:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.