Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers/archive1

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 or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 9 September 2011 [1].

List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers[edit]

Featured list candidates/List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers/archive1

Nominator(s): —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly straightforward list, a fairly new addition of the The New York Times Best Seller list which is published weekly. The addition of this category by The New York Times reflects the not insignificant market share of manga in the American comic book industry. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The web sources from Anime News Network are currently inaccessible because its network host is conducting "emergency maintenance", according to ANN's Facebook page. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the list should be split and have its sublists submitted to FLC. Its better then becoming a FL then being split and losing its status like Bleach did. Anywho, the list is well referenced with New York Times and Anime News network. I understand ANN is currently down. However, does each week need to be referenced by two sources? I'd rather see New York Times and an webcite archive of it. My position is neutral for now. If no editors find a reason to oppose, I will support this list for featured list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network is back, albeit slow, causing some items in the autochecker to time out. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Agree with DragonZero that this will need to be split, if not now then sometime in the future. There are already 272 references; how many will there be in three years? It's just going to become impractical over the long haul. I know we don't want to split lists into too many sublists, but this topic strikes me as ideal for yearly lists. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if the general consensus is that it needs to be split. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed with above, the list will become terribly unmanageable in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree the list should be split. Otherwise it seems well referenced.陣内 _Jinnai 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as is, agree with those who think it should be split. May as well start now since it will have to be done soon enough. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.