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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 1 support, 0 oppose. Fail. -- MarcK 04:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I am nominating the page because I feel that it is up to FL standards.

I am going to address a couple issues I think will come up.

1. Double links: Yes, there are a lot of repeat blue links and it is generally frowned upon, but the table is sortable and it was decided that every name should be linked so that it would be easier to go somewhere.
2. Lack of individual citations: I have had previous FLCs where it was demanded that each row have an individual citations, but in that case there would be 200+ sources and I felt there was no need when there was an easy link page that could be at the bottom. Also, none of the rows have any statements that could be taken as POV.

Any other issues that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Pick a picture for the lead section. This will appear in the truncated version that appears should this be featured. Your Note1 backlink doesn't work. The table needs a column for series number, which should also be indicated in your references. I don't think individual citations are required in this case since it is not a dynamic list. The refs given make it quite easy to check the names. I agree with your comment on repeated links. Your lead could do with being copyedited (e.g. "with 20 having been able to" is awkward and over-complex). You give a lot of different terms for the contestants (castaways, participants, cast, competitors), which might be confusing. The External links aren't relevant to this list. I'm sure the main Survivor, or other series-specific pages will contain those. Ultimately, I don't think it passes the FLC 1a. Criterion 1a1 requires mostly blue-links, which this list certainly fails. Obviously most of these castaways are non-notable, even the winners are pretty forgettable. Criterion 1a3 requires this to be "a significant topic of study". A list of contestants on a TV show is not IMO a significant topic of study for an encyclopaedia). Colin° ^Talk 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The contestants themselves DO meet notability requirements, but the reason many of them don't have pages is because everything that can be said about them can also be said in their season pages. Also, could you please define "a significant topic of study" for me? What makes this any less significant than a list of players for an ice hockey team or a list of members of a walk of fame? Each page has its significance and just because this one isn't as obvious to you doesn't mean that it doesn't meet requirements. The rest of your suggestions will be implemented. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • The make-up of a sport team is important to those who document and study a team's history. Having a "walk of fame" award is a notable attribute that one may wish to study. Appearing on a reality TV show does not guarantee long term notability or even interest. It is hard to see how the cast list of any TV show or film could really be regarded as "a significant topic of study", whether they are actors or drawn from the public. The list is nicely presented, sure, but I'd prefer to draw the line somewhere higher than here. The reason for the "significant" clause is that 1a3 introduced the possibility of producing an otherwise perfect list of complete trivia. The cast list for tonight's episode of EastEnders, or the bus timetable for the No13 service. If you could pass on 1a1, then it might be different (I'm certainly not encouraging you to create articles for these non-notable people). As it is, I'm leaning towards oppose. Colin° ^Talk 19:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I don't watch survivor, so the location of the season does not tell me as much as the year of the season would. Is it possible to add a column to make it sortable by season year? If not a legend would help. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 12:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The default sort is the order that the seasons aired and then by the order that the participants were voted out. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Neutral The list seems to exhibit many of the WP:WIAFL characteristics. However, I am fearful that giving this featured status will give a toehold to non-notable list members in future WP:AFD discussions. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • I doubt that would happen, because "Is a part of a larger topic that is part of a featured list" is not among the inclusion crieteria. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I just want to comment that indeed, a list where almost all the material is taken from a few sources can be sourced that way instead. It's been done for the NFL drafts and Team seasons, for example. Circeus 05:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply