Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/never proposal

I don't think you've done a very good job of explaining why these articles shouldn't be featured. Presumably we eventually want every article to meet the FA standards; why are these an exception? Of course, whether they should be on the main page is a different matter, and the current wording admits this reality. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Definitely against this proposal, especially in the absence of any arguments for what is wrong with the current system. I'm not sure I even understand the logic of your proposal. That's fine if you think Ununhexium shouldn't be used to draw people into the project (I happen to disagree), but what does that have to do with being a featured article?? I fully agree with Christopher Parham. Please consider elaborating on your proposal. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal, on the grounds that it will go some way to protect the WP project from commercial advertising from this point forwards. It is unfortunate that the project currently heaves under so much thinly veiled professional product placement, whilst the criteria for inclusion directly blocks community-level advertising of a similar nature: a corporate ad-man's dream come true. The seemingly natural progression from FA to the front page is almost certainly the place to start reforming the project. That Cool (Song) lead the front page seemingly unopposed at the same time as commercial release is as good a reason as any for this reform. --HasBeen 09:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And how do you suppose this reform will address your concern? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * By flagging up commercial products as being unsuitable for feature on the front page, we can remove the prospect of a free half page advert for these products ever leading the project. This in itself greatly reduces the impact of such stand-alone articles as marketing tools, and hopefully will go some way to detering such deliberate abuse of wikip. That it is very difficult to determine an advertisment for a product from legitimate content in many of these cases makes this proposal all the more relevant. Restrospective application of this proposal is fraught with problems, and might seriously generate a lot of bad feeling between users, but if a line is drawn this month (or whenever), we can at least curb this possible abuse of the project. --HasBeen 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could clarify the proposal then? I understand your arguments, but I cannot see how this is any different from our current system. Why would this system be better at preventing certain articles from being shown on the Main Page than the current system is? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)