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

Gillingham F.C.

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]

Support. this is a comprehensive and complete set of articles. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a very impressive effort, and it'd be nice to see more sporting team articles following in the stead of this set. Rebecca (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~~Comment.~~ On looking at the FT criteria, the only thing which might concern me is that the template linking them also includes one un-nominated article, Gillingham F.C. records. This is a small two-section list which was spun off from the relevant section of the main article when this was being prepared for FAC. I'm not well enough acquainted with the criteria to know whether its omission might cause a cherry-picking problem? I'd hope it doesn't – the set of articles nominated are uniformly excellent and provide a balanced overview of the topic, and otherwise I'd be happy to support the nomination. Struway2 (talk) 11:17, 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. – Pee Jay 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. – Pee Jay 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 (talk • contribs) 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]

The Stats article is pretty much as good as it could be. Support --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it all. Either the records article is included (at FL standard) or it is not at all. I don't personally believe that the Records article will ever expand much beyond its current state, there simply aren't enough stats. I can see however, a point in the future where a big club (Liverpool, Villa (ha) etc) will come to FT with complete lists. Liverpool F.C. statistics and records is a case in point. I think in those instances, it will help build up a club overview. In Gillinghams case, it doesn't add to the overview, and as such it cannot be classed as cherry-picking. So... I think this is a complete topic, so have to Support. Woody (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is rare for a Gills fan to have something to be proud of that can be favourably compared with any other club in the country. This collection of articles is something that Wikipedia should be proud of and be able to offer as a model. Kevin McE (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the records article has now undergone a Peer Review, and most contributors felt it should be considered as part of the topic, I've added it in to the master list above..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic collection of articles, which presents the hard work that has gone into them. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant set of articles, as Woody said as Gillingham is not as big as Liverpool or Aston Villa, theres is not much scope for records in that article so for me it passes NapHit (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job well done. Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support-I would wait until the peer review Gillingham F.C. records is finished before promoting. Zginder^{(talk) (Contrib)} 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming there are no further additions, the PR for that one will have been inactive for two weeks (and therefore finish-able) on Friday..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close. No real issues here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just giving it its customary two weeks. I'll close it today. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]