Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hulk Hogan/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

[edit] Hulk Hogan

Very good article, well written, appropriate references, most sections go in-depth. Can't see reasons why this shouldn't be FA. Davnel03 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose due to short lead, lack of enough images and only three references. WikiNew 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per complete and utter lack of references, let alone inline citations. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lack of citations and references (a Citation Needed tag is also currently in the article). The fair use photos need a fair use rationale in order to be used. Also lead section is short. -- Oakster  Talk  15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per criterion 1. c. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very rarely would any PW article qualify for FA status - this is not an exception. Manager Of Champions 01:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• While I agree that the article shouldn't be a FA without the citations it's lacking and other reasons, I find it down right stereotypical to !vote against an article because you don't like the subject matter. — Moe 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki PW articles have become notorious for being crammed full of fancruft and becoming the battleground for edit warring. There is no serious effort to remedy this. Hence, very rarely would a PW article qualify for FA status, unless the standards on Wikipedia have suddenly been lowered beyond belief. Manager Of Champions 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That is unfortunately very true. If all the cruft was removed from Hulk Hogan it would be sadly inevitable that some fanboy would feel the need to make his mark by cluttering it up again. This is a problem that articles on classical mythology and horticulture don't have. One only has to look at how much s**t was added to Donald Trump after he became involved in WWE storylines. No matter what warnings and guideline pointers we put on wrestling articles they still get ignored regularly. Suriel1981 00:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose while agree that few PW articles would qualify for FA status, Hogan's would be one that I can seeing having enough interest that it should be. Unfortunately, this one doesn't meet the standard. Not enough pictures for an american icon. The intro is too short. The citations are significantly lacking. And an article of just too full of list of fights... the sections up thru the Japanese stint were interesting. But from Andre the Giant forward it got boring...Balloonman 04:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry but there just seem to be too few references/citations and an excess of fancruft currently. Suriel1981 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, but I did mention this is close to FA status before, all we need to do is add a few more images and get a load of references, this was just elected at the wrong time. Govvy 12:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've added eight images, now they just need to work on the references.PepsiPlunge 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment not only does it need work on the citations, but it also needs to be trimmed---we don't need a play by play on Hulk's wrestling history/matches. Here is my suggestion, that might take care of some of the fancruft. Break the article into a couple of sub articles. Make one of those sub articles "Rivalries of Hulk Hogan" and put most of the play by play into the sub article. Focus on the IMPORTANT events in Hulk Hogan's life. Pick a few notable matches that he was involved in, but put most of them in another article---the average reader (to whom an FA must appeal) doesn't care.Balloonman 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Adding images of fair-use are alright if there are fair-use rationales included in each of them. None of them have one at the moment. -- Oakster  Talk  20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't dispute the notability of the person, the article is full of fancruft that matters little to people outside of WWF/WCW/etc. Poor organization within sections, excessive use of bullet lists, poor referencing. Madcoverboy 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.