Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/May 2009

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [1].

---

IWGP Heavyweight Championship

Notified WP Professional Wrestling and Marck

I'm nominating this list for FLRC because it does not meet the following criteria:

• Prose - The prose does not flow well, IMO, and should be expanded much further.
• Lead - Same as above, as the only prose is the lead. The lead needs much more expansion.
• Comprehensiveness - There are a few blank boxes in the notes section that should be filled in.
• Structure - The list is not sortable, it should be.
• Visual appeal - There is none, whatsoever. An image at least, would be helpful.

This list certainly does not display the right qualities to be called "Wikipedia's best work" so unless changes are made, it should be removal as a Featured list. iMatthew // talk // 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments don't give much direction. Can you point out specific problems with the flow of the prose? What more would you like to see added to the lead section? Please also keep in mind that there might not be anything to say about some title changes, in which cases blank boxes can't really be filled in. I have also added two free-use images. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take this step by step. First off is the lead. It needs to be expanded further. iMatthew // talk // 02:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. As I asked before, though, what would you like to see added to the lead section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Remove The articles fails most of the criteria, multiple polocies, and some of the MoS of WP:PW. Would explain further, but can't at the moment.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep All the problems I have with the list have been fixed. It meets criteria in my eyes. It should stay an FL IMO.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that an FLRC begins with discussion and is not simply a vote. There's no reason to remove it before trying to work on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah I know, I'm going to discuss. I'm just giving my stand point on it at the moment. I'm not sure the sources are reliable at the moment either. Never been that sure on Strong Spirit. The lead needs more information on the belt and pro wrestling in general.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• One thing that can be done is adding the days held section, and adding the template that counts the days.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- We need to take into consideration whether we want to split this article up into a "List of ___ Champions" list and a general article like the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I've been asked on the X Title's FLC if it should even been slipt off from the belt. If the title history was broke off into another article, then this belt would have much less information.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• See the WHC, info just needs to be found and descriptive details, despite their lengths. See the WHC got to GA. I think its a good idea to split it to coincide with other lists.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That is what I said, not in those words. This is a Japanese championship, most of those articles are stub to C class articles. I doubt we could find enough reliable information for this championship.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Never say never. But I was just throwing that out there.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that Scorpion0422's big concern was the use of a questionable source. I have addressed this concern by providing general sources (a book source from a reliable publisher, and the official title history from NJPW's website). I chose to leave the Strong Style Spirit references in, as they are no longer citing contentious material. I believe that the champions and dates could have been open to questioning, so that is resolved. The name of the tour on which the title change took place is not contentious material, however, so I believe that the current references can stand. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• I see reliable sources under the general section - Strong Style is sourced for the details and the general sources clarify the overall info such as who, when and where. I don't see a problem with that. The table should be updated to look like the current version of the title tables with length of reign, sortable etc. It can easily be fixed by someone. As for "Blank notes", not everything NEEDS a note so I don't see that as a problem, it's definitly not a "Featured List" requirement. Look at more recent wrestling title FLs for leads & intros etc. While yes it's not quite as good as the latest FLs it can easily be fixed and could have been achieved without going straight for removal. I mean didn't ANYONE think to ask for improvements before going straight for removal? I thought that was the recommended way to do it? I will begin working on updating the table format. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Notifying the relevant projects and editors and giving them a chance to fix things before initiating an FLRC is, indeed, the recommended way to do it. I know I caught hell a while back for only notifying the projects and then waiting 8 days, as I hadn't left messages on the individual editors' talk pages. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I did the table update, it's now in line with recent FLs and FLCs AND sorts. WP:PW may want to consider removing the "individual Reign by length" section as it's redundant now that you can sort on the length of the reigns. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC) PS - I'd say improve the lead and it's an easy keep. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Now that MPJ-DK has added a column for "days held", can we (please) get rid of the "length of individual reigns" table"? It now adds absolutlely nothing to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I already removed it. If you could, will you add somemore info about the championship's history if you can to the lead?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I strongly recommend seeking another image to avoid using the break template because its leaves a huge break between the lead and the next section.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note that I have not had much activity in this despite opening it, and that's because of how busy I've been. Sorry about that, though I've seen a lot of work done through discussion amongst yourselves. Its getting better, and hopefully in a day or two I can make some final comments and we can keep this thing. ;) iMatthew // talk // 18:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Something's wrong with the formatting of reference 1. I think the parenthetical page number is the culprit. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed this, as well as a few other ones that had the same problem. Nikki♥311 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Every Strong Style Spirit reference is dead
• There is a large gap of blank space between the lead/infobox and the table of contents.
• The sortable function for #, Days held, and Date are not working correctly.
• Key and List of champions tables should be separated into two subsections.
• The SSP external link is broken, like the rest.
• Surely there is a template that could be added?
• Add a link to the professional wrestling portal (in the external links section)
• See also section can be removed. Nothing there that is directly relevant to the title.
• I'd like to see more expansion on to a history section.

 iMatthew :  Chat  11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorting fixed for date and number columns; portal link added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're saying with "key and list of champions..." The blank space has been reduced considerably. The Strong Style Spirit site is making some changes, so it says the pages will be back soon. "See also" section removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This two-sentence conclusion caused me some concern: "At 489 days, Shinya Hashimato is currently the longest in the championship's history. Overall, There have been a total of 22 recognized champions who have had a combined 50 official reigns." No subject in the first sentence, and faulty capitalization in the second, along with a wordy "a total of". Also, the note for reign 12 has an excess comma. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Done GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove - Sorry, but I can't in good conscience support keeping this featured when more than half of the references are to a unreliable website that is currently down. Even if the site comes back up, it doesn't make it conform to our policies and guidelines. For that reason alone, I recommend that the list be demoted, at least until better sources are used. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question - Would it help if those sources were simply removed? The list is fully sourced without them, as the Almanac and the IWGP website cover all of the title changes. The extra sources are essentially filler. I'm not sure why filler sources from a website with unproven reliability would lead to demotion, but I'm up for just ditching the Strong Style Spirit references if that's all it takes to end this FLRC. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as all of the notes and such are covered by the general references, yes it would. I'd drop my oppose if that was done. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Struck above, as the references from the site in question were removed. Depending on how one feels about Wrestling-Titles.com and TitleHistories.com, this is heading toward keep territory. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• What's this doing exposed in the lead? "Tastumi Fujinami currently holds the most reigns at 5, At 489 days, Shinya Hashimoto is currently ... ", Apart from the obvious, there's at at, a comma probably required after "reigns", and a spelled-out 5, especially since it's near the big number that must be spelled out. MOS is strict about inbuilt rapid obsolescence: "currently"?

• I did some work on this. Is it better now? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Wrestlers are portrayed as either villains or fan favorites as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches for the championship." Is that a "because" as or a "while" as? It's hard to know. "events that". The sentence is almost too long.
• The lead is slender, so if this survives with its star, can the editors beef up the interest-factor of the lead? It's supposed to be bit special, not a humdrum intro. Tony (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 19:43, 9 May 2009 [2].

---

United States Academic Decathlon National Championship

Though the primary author (Yohhans) is inactive at Wikipedia, I have notified him, as well as WP Education and WP United States

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I don't believe it meets the comprehensiveness standard, more particularly, 3a. The article's FLC back in November 2008 was exceptionally short, and several key points are missing entirely from the article, which I now have sources from. In addition, the prose and the reference formatting could use a lot of work; I don't believe that they are up to proper standards at all. Finally, there are several other parts to the article, such as the notes section for example, that could be improved. I'll see if I can take a look at this in a month or so, perhaps, but from my own personal experience and the sources I have recently obtained, I don't feel that the article is currently good enough to remain a featured list. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from the FLRC director

• Uh, how exactly does it fail 3a? It looks fine. Maybe the prose needs touching up there and there, but I'm not seeing any major gaps. I don't know what's wrong with the references either. On another note, you really aren't offering any reasons why this should be delisted (i.e. examples of why it isn't comprehensive); your "personal experience" isn't enough here without pointing, even generally, at what is wrong. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I reviewed this FLC. Looking at it with fresh eyes, there are a few awkward parts, but nothing major. Please supply examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this FLRC pretty late last night, so perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Let me try again: I feel that there are several very important parts of the National Championship itself (the event that was held last week) that are simply missing; the article does not explain how the competition goes over the four days that it is held. There are also some fairly important events, such as the Welcoming Reception or the Awards Banquet, that are simply not mentioned at all. I feel that the article needs to be substantially expanded with such information, as those who are interested in this article (primarily other Decathletes, I would assume), would wish to know about that kind of information, especially if they would be going to Nationals for the first time or something. As for the prose, I forgot that I had already attempted a fix; that part of my argument is really not as valid. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you illustrate why the "Welcoming Reception" and "Awards Banquet" need to be explained? I've been to my fair share of decathlons (not this one though), and any and all reception or awards events tend to be relatively unimportant in the grander scheme of things aside from being formalities. Is there some sort of special importance attached to them in relation to this event? Also remember that we're writing for a general audience, not those participating in the competition, so everything about the event does not need to be covered in exhaustive detail (or covered at all mind you). I'm assuming that you've participated in this in some fashion, but you need to highlight the importance of these events through sourcing. If their only purpose is a mere formality to introduce and award the competitors respectively, then they don't really need to be explained. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The ceremonies are themselves formalities, yes, this is true. However, while they are formalities, the awards banquet in particular was a rather big deal at the National Competition. I do realize that these are for a general audience, but I would assume as well that general audiences would be interested in learning of the order of the events. For example, I would guess that those reading this article would also be interested in learning about the schedule of events; for example, how the events are broken into several days as opposed to just one for most state competitions, etc. I feel that that should be probably be focused upon especially for this article, which is otherwise only 3.5 paragraphs of prose, about half of which probably does not actually need to be there. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Comment Is there a reason a short paragraph that covers these topics cannot be added rather than delisting? It doesn't seem like much work, if the sources are already at hand.YobMod 14:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was expecting this to be a lot more than just a little work of just a paragraph; probably like two extra paragraphs minimum would be required. Also, while researching, I found that adding several additional tables might be warranted, such as of the three Divisions' scores (which might now have enough sources to be completed), or of maybe top scoring students. I feel that if I would be adding this much information and revamping the article this much, the article should undergo again the FLC process to make sure it is truly a top-notch article. 17:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as FLRC is the perfect venue for auditing list quality, why not make the additions yourself? Giants2008 (17-14) 00:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

From my (limited) experiences at FAR, I have noticed that articles that would basically quickfail at FAC today often have a decent chance of staying an FA through FAR. I had assumed that FLRC would be much the same. Plus, while the article is deficient now, I do not really anticipate getting all the sources I need (some are still with a few friends, etc.), for another two months. I see no reason for the article to stay an FL during this time if it is incomplete. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Q: The lead is already pretty long - Are you planning to expand the text to an extent that it would make sense to instead be a GA? or to perform a split? I would guess that there is a lot to write about the event in general, if we want full coverage. If this article will undergo a major revamp, i would tend towards weak delisting, but the intro to the list should not take the place of a possible seperate article that covers the history etc in detail. Some of the info suggested above to be missing seems a lot of detail for a FL intro.YobMod 08:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My intent for this article was for it to not be an article at all. It was meant to be a list (hence the general lack of prose and submission to FLC). A description of the awards banquet could be in order, but it is also something that could (should?) be included in the main USAD article. That section (National winners) is already pretty short anyway and could simply be changed to National competition to justify a discussion of the banquet.

Regarding additional tables, I did not include them for the following reasons: I did not have sources for all DI, DII, DIII winners from past years, division winners were not always recognized, and lastly, in some years, there were also regional winners (See the 1997 National competition). Including the data the way I did seemed like the only logical way to represent every past national championship. To add in other tables would require a lot of caveats, concessions and confusion. I figured the only way to make this List accessible to those unfamiliar with Academic Decathlon (or more importantly, its past—and let us be honest here, how many people in the country, barring a few coaches, score fanatics, and committee members have any sort of understanding of USAD's past?) was to make it as simple as possible. This means making some concessions and only including reliable scores.

Add the information about the banquets to the article if you want. It would be awesome to have it in there (granted, some restructuring would have to happen to cut down on the length of the lead). However, not having this particular bit of information seems like a silly reason to have the FL status removed. - Yohhans ^talk 15:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking over this one since Yobmod had posted earlier, and I think that perhaps both he and Yohhans are right. While there is some missing information, I believe, I do not think that it is vital to the article. What could be added (even incomplete data on Divisions, Regional winners, etc. would be fine) is not necessary for the article. This discussion would probably be better for the talk page. I made an error taking this to FLRC. I do apologize to everyone who spent time looking this over, but I would like to withdraw this FLRC, please. Yohhans, if you are interested, I'll bring up some discussion on the Talk page about possible restructuring of the USAD and USAD National Competition on the latter's talk page in a few days. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm always open to discussion. - Yohhans ^talk 18:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [3].

---

List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York

Fails criterion #3b. The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York, and could easily be merged into Amenia (CDP), New York once pruned. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just let it get deleted via AFD. There's nothing to merge here, practically. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• It still needs to be officially delisted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delist—3b. A content fork that was never necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delist—3b. I've already nominated it for deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delist-per Juliancolton.Geraldk (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delist - Unnessecary to have list of four roads in CDP of 1,115 people. Dough4872 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delist - Not notable enough; too short. –CG 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [4].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Notorious B.I.G.

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

11 items, a merge could easily be done. 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist—3b. Hate those stubby little sections: messy look and fragmentary to comprehend. Tony (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [5].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Nirvana

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This might be the most debateable one I've nominated yet (it'ss a little more painful for me, because I do quite like Nirvana) because Nirvana (band) is a Featured Article, and adding a bunch of awards information could easily unbalance it. However, with 21 items, a merge still would be possible. 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. I do think 25 is about the limit between splitting off these lists and embedding them into the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wait So what's happening? I say this as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music and its Nirvana taskforce, and I haven't been around much lately. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
  • They introduced a new criterion which basically means that if a list could be put into an article (i.e., not long enough to warrant a separate page) or is a content fork it cannot be featured. Yeah, I found it a bit sudden too. It basically means all but a select few List of awards... articles will have their bronze stars stripped from them.  GARDEN  09:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist; 3b. Merge if possible. Tony (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: I think the importance of a band should be taken into consideration for these lists and Nirvana are considered to be an important band in terms of influence at the very least. While the article currently contains 21 items, it should at least contain 23 (I found a couple more to add this morning - an ECHO nomination and a Radio Music Award nomination[6] - for which I just need to track down reliable sources) and I'd be surprised if there weren't more. While 25 would be a good rule of thumb for these lists, having 23 for an important band make this very border-line and given that the Nirvana article is FA and they were an important band I would keep the list as a FL. --JD554 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that notability is not inherited. Yes, Nirvana is an extremely notable band, but that does not mean every single article relating to it is also extremely notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying the list of awards is notable because the band is notable - it is notable due to the coverage of the awards and nominations received in reliable sources otherwise we'd be looking at an AfD. What I am trying to say, perhaps badly, is that the rule of thumb of 25 nominations/awards shouldn't be a hard and fast rule and consideration should be given to the importance of the band when determining the number of nominations/awards which make a sustainable list. --JD554 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [7].

---

List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

No Doubt is a decent-sized article, and a GA, but I think the content of this page (only 21 items), could be merged into it. 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist. 3b. And why couldn't those separate tables have been conflated into one? Tony (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [8].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Neptunes

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This list has only 16 items. 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [9].

---

Walter A. Brown Trophy

Notified: Chrishomingtang and SRE.K.A.L.24 are both aware per this discussion.

I discussed this with nominators Chrishomingtang and SRE.K.A.L.24 and I think that this page fails 3b. The list recreates content from List of NBA champions. Since there isn't much else to it, it would be possible to merge it with the champions list. A small section could be added about it, maybe a "trophies" section, and to balance things out, a bit can be aded about the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy (although I'm not suggesting it be merged too). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Per above. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Per above and per failure of 3b. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Per nom—Chris! _ct 05:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist but I think that Walter A. Brown Trophy should be rewritten to be a GA a la Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. It was about for almost twice as long as the O'Brien Trophy has been. I think it is notable enough to not simply be merged with List of NBA champions. But I agree that the current listy nature of the article is a failure of 3b - rst20xx (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - List is basically a carbon copy of what can be found in List of NBA champions. Clearly fails Criterion 3b. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove—3b. Tony (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can demote this now... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [10].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Justice

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This list has only 13 items, although several of them are Grammies, and Justice (French band) isn't particularily long. 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and probably should be merged, per 3b criterion.YobMod 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 20:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist—3b. Tony (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [11].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Korn

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

It's a little less obvious, since Korn is a good-sized (but not overly long) page, but this list has only 20 items, although several of them are Grammies (but over half of the awards/noms are for one song). Either way, 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. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and probably should be merged, per 3b criterion.YobMod 13:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by The Rambling Man 10:06, 30 May 2009 [12].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Matchbox Twenty

Notified: Nobody. I think there is no point in notifying GaryKing or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This list has only 11 items and per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. The majority of these awards could easily be listed on band's page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and probably should be merged, per 3b criterion.YobMod 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and merge per nom. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [13].

---

List of Australian national cricket captains

Notified:WP Australia, WP Cricket, main contributors Jguk and Moondyne are inactive

I am nominating this for featured list removal because...it fails criteria 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the WP:WIAFL. The prose in the lead is very choppy and needs to be worked on. The lead itself is very short for such a long list. Those 3-4 sentences in each section are written very poorly. Why does this list keeps reminding us that it's complete? I think it is obvious that it's complete. None of the notes in the tables are clickable, which makes it very hard to navigate around. Reference formatting needs a lot of work also. All the sources are spread out throughout the page and very hard to find the one needed.Crzycheetah 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove - Lead leaves a lot to be desired; among the problems is the bold "this is a list of" that has become frowned upon at FLC, and a lack of citations. I agree with the nominator that the repetitive introductions are annoying, and that the formatting of the references used needs work. A disambiguation link also needs to be repaired. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove

• Has someone been notified? And is there a WikiProject for this?
• "This is a list of the men, boys and women"—bizarre.
• The opportunity to spark readers' interest in the table they're about to digest is completely overlooked. If no one is willing to do the work, this is destined for demotion.
• Unsure why the teams should be "hidden" pipe-linked a zillion times in the table next to unlinked items that look the same. All of these teams should probably be linked in the lead (a few don't even make it into the slender lead, I think), and plain text in the table. Good to have the pics. Tony (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep Simple Reason, Highly Notable Bharath (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't AFD... Xclamation point 00:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [14].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Good Charlotte

Notified: Nobody. Feel free to disagree, but I think there is no point in notifying Gary or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

Because Good Charlotte really really sucks. This one is a bit longer than some of the other artist lists, but I think it does not require an individual page since it's not a particularily complex history and I think that the majority of these can't really be considered major awards. Per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. The majority of these awards could easily be merged into their page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and Merge Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and probably should be merged, per 3b criterion.YobMod 14:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist, it seems, WRT 3b. I'm also concerned about the structure, which is very fragmented. A succession of single-item tables in their own sections seems to make comprehension more rather than less difficult. Tony (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist per 3b. Definitely needs to be merged.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [15].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Blink-182

Notified: Nobody. Feel free to disagree, but I think there is no point in notifying Gary or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This list has only ten items (which is surprising, considering that for a while they were a pretty major act). Per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. The majority of these awards could easily be merged into their page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist per 3b. TheLeftorium 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge Reywas92^Talk 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [16].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Natasha Bedingfield

Notified: None. Feel free to disagree, but I think there is no point in notifying Gary or any wikiprojects since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

This artist has been nominated ten awards, so it's hardly a long or complex list that needs an individual page. Per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. The majority of these awards could easily be merged into her page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:47, 9 May 2009 [17].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Adele

Notified: Another Believer, no wikiprojects. Feel free to disagree, but I think there is no point in notifying them since very little (if anything) can be done and they are already well aware of the criteria change. All it does is clog up their talk page with messages.

Per criterion 3b, I believe that this page can be considered a content fork and does not meet the requirements of standalone lists. The majority of these awards could easily be merged into her page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Delist Fails 3b and nothing can be done to bring it up to standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist and merge Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/Comment: Just for the record, I can understand not awarding this list with a featured star, but I do not think the list should be deleted or merged to the Adele article. This is a quality, informative list that presents information in a clear, concise manner. Please consider leaving the article in tact, so that it can be updated in the future. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not a deletion or merging discussion. This is just decide whether or not the list should retain its featured status. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • What Scorpion said. Additionally, quality does not determine whether an article can/should exist. I could write a really nice article about the sewer cover in front of my house, but would it last long on Wikipedia? Probably not. Extreme example, but the idea is the same. This information can be presented in the main article just as nicely, without the lead, which would be superfluous. Anyhow, the list fails 3b and should be delisted. What happens after that is not important here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the clarification, Scorpion. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't a deletion or merging discussion--Reywas92's "Merge" comment threw me off. Again, I have no problem with removing the featured star, if it is not up to standard. I just like these awards/nominations lists, and I'd hate to see them disappear simply because they are not 'featured'. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist and probably should be merged, per 3b criterion. (Note, i say it should be merged imo, but that should be determined on the talk page of the article after delisting here.).YobMod 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Sephiroth BCR 22:54, 9 May 2009 [18].

---

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions

Notified: WikiProject International relations, WikiProject United Nations and Dominic.

I actually mentioned these concerns on the article talk page back in February 2008 and they have not been addressed. There are no citations at all on the page. The general source used for this page just links to a general website, nothing specific. Users looking for citations shouldn't have to comb a website for them. Also, I'm not particularily fond of the colour tables or their format. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious what aspect you think needs more sourcing. Being just a listing of the names and related conflicts and locations for peacekeeping missions, there aren't really any claims in the article that aren't self-evident, unless I am mistaken. The colors are a different matter: It's a wiki, feel free to improve them. Dominic·t 22:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the lead, several of the notes, etc. Simply adding a link to the main website isn't enough for featured pages any more. As for the table formats, visual appeal and structure are in the FL criteria, so it is an actionable concern. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that some claims in the lead need sourcing with specific citations. The list itself seems to be sourced from the links after each entry: i would prefer foot-noting, which by FL standards would generally include useful info (date, author etc), which is better than clicking on the each link to find out what it is. So MoS and visual appeal do seem to be out of line with current requirments.YobMod 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, not only the citations issue (there is a substantial academic literature on the UN): this rich and complex list topic needs a more substantial lead to entice the readers to make more of the list. Can it link to United_Nations#Peacekeeping_and_security somewhere, too? (More specific.) And, just a suggestion, in the table why not pipe-link to the appropriate section rather than the top of the relevant article? Congo_Crisis#UN_military_intervention rather than just Congo_Crisis? Readers can easily scroll up if they want to get a bigger picture. Scorpion, however, might advise otherwise, since I have relatively little experience at FLC. Pity this one can't be saved. Have editors at the UN and associated pages been contacted? Tony (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

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