The list was kept by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [1].
Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.
Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many people don't know their HIV-positive status.
A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?
What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.
A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column? TONY (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now Pornographic actor so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its highest level, at around 33.2 million
(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)
Eubulides ( talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [2].
I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion 0422 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Support removal
-- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH ( talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [4].
I am nominating this page for removal because it has been tagged for a lack of citations since March (and doesn't appear to have any kind of main reference for the bulk of the list) and its lead is a sum total of one sentence. -- Scorpion 0422 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [5].
I am nominating this page for removal because it has no citations and no references ( criterion 1c, it has an inadequate lead (2a) and according to the page (and page history) it hasn't been updated since 2007. -- Scorpion 0422 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Gimmetrow 01:07, 13 June 2008 [6].
This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.
I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [1].
Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.
Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many people don't know their HIV-positive status.
A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?
What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.
A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column? TONY (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now Pornographic actor so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its highest level, at around 33.2 million
(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)
Eubulides ( talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [2].
I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion 0422 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Support removal
-- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH ( talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [4].
I am nominating this page for removal because it has been tagged for a lack of citations since March (and doesn't appear to have any kind of main reference for the bulk of the list) and its lead is a sum total of one sentence. -- Scorpion 0422 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Matthewedwards 23:54, 19 June 2008 [5].
I am nominating this page for removal because it has no citations and no references ( criterion 1c, it has an inadequate lead (2a) and according to the page (and page history) it hasn't been updated since 2007. -- Scorpion 0422 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by User:Gimmetrow 01:07, 13 June 2008 [6].
This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian ( talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comments
-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.
I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply