The list has 20 items, so a merge could easily be performed. I don't think it's large enough to a split and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. -- Scorpion042214:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep twenty items is a significant list. I do believe that merging this list would unbalance the article and it is of sufficient length to meet 3b. Geraldk (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have delisted larger lists than this. I think 20 items could easily be added there. Take Julie Kavner#Awards, there are only four less than are here and I don't think it impedes the article or unbalances it at all. Hell, the filmography is a lot bigger than this page and it also doesn't unbalance it. -- Scorpion042222:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This one is longer than others, but still not enough nominations to be a stand-alone list. As for the "unofficial" limit for this type of lists, it should be close to 30.--Crzycheetah02:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald, I appreciate your hard work; however, please note that the criteria evolve and the expectations and standards along with them. This is a good thing, I believe. One of my pet hates is single-item lists, and this is full of them. At the very least, some way needs to be found to merge the sections—there's horizontal space for providing another column or two that could accommodate the lead info in the sections. Otherwise, or as well, merge for a much better impact on our readers. Tony(talk)14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that the standards evolve, as they should, my concern is and continues to be that they not evolve in such a way as to make the process and the idea of featured list status unclear to editors. You have done a tremendous amount of work helping people to understand the FA criteria with very detailed expalanations, which has helped elucidate the FA process for a lot of people. But I see no amount of detailed explanation that will help editors when the WIAFL criteria allow for essentially a random subjective judgement of length as a core criterion. Geraldk (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geraldk. I don't see where criterion 3b specifies that more than 20 items are required for awards lists. Is this a hidden criterion? It appears the minimum number of items is a subjective opinion, I believe 20 is a significant number of awards.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with the view that the criteria does not specify the minimum number of items required for an awards list. If the above users feel that this is the case then they should discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, where the latest resolved discussion indicates that a list should have at least 10 items. Is then another attempt at re-hashing that point. I hope not. Dan arndt (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We did discuss it at WP:WIAFL, and the consensus was 3b. 3b, while it doesn't have a hard minimum, states that a content form must have the notability or length to sustain itself as a stand alone list. This page does not. -- Scorpion042215:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
