Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Gillingham F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gillingham F.C.

[edit]
Main page Articles
Gillingham F.C. History of Gillingham F.C. - List of Gillingham F.C. players - List of Gillingham F.C. managers - Gillingham F.C. seasons - Priestfield Stadium - Gillingham F.C. records

Self nomination I feel that this set of six Featured Articles/Lists and one article of limited scope which has been audited for quality comprises a full and complete overview of this football (soccer) club, with no obvious gaps, and is worthy of FT status, but I await the judgment of the wider community ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, every single article relating to a topic doesn't necessarily have to be included in the FTC, only those which are needed to comprise a full overview of the subject. The stats article is almost a form of trivia, and I don't feel it is needed for a full overview. On the subject of it being included in the template, Wilco discography is a FT and contains a template which includes loads of articles which aren't bundled into the FT, including all their singles...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm sure you could include the stats article in this nomination and it would still pass. WP:WIAFT says "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality" and I believe this covers Gillingham F.C. records. However, it may need a wee bit of expansion, but not much. – PeeJay 11:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play, I'll put it up for a quick PR..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I support this FTC regardless of the inclusion of the stats article, but others might not. – PeeJay 12:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stats article might fall under the "short article clause", but I see no reason why it couldn't be improved to FL status. It has references, which should make it sable and uncontrovertable. If it was just cleaned up a bit and got some photos, it should be FL quality. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in which case, I shall definitely support. Well done. Struway2 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]