Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/May 2012

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 The Rambling Man 17:47, 9 May 2012 [1].

Notified: Legolas2186, WikiProject Discograpies, WikiProject Madonna

This 2009 FL has several references to offline magazine articles that may have been fabricated. A thread on

Certainly, the bad cites and any dependent text must be removed, if the text cannot be supported by other sources. I think that's the first step. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the four bad "sources" from the article and replaced them with fact tags. The article should be examined for proper use of legitimate sources. Binksternet (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not seeing any maintenance tags now, but a few content issues (5 million -> five million, bare Url for ref 68 etc), but otherwise no major trauma here for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Giants2008 20:05, 21 May 2012 [2].

I hate doing this kind of thing but while browsing the queue of lists at

• I'm only OK with this article being delisted if concensus is to merge it with
  List of winners of the Mathcounts competition is going to be kept as a separate article, I'm willing to put the work into getting it up to FL status. Neelix (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delist. Can reasonably be included in Mathcounts. Goodraise 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist and would support a merger back into the main article; this is a list of non-notable people, so there's nothing else to say about any of them, and it can reasonably be included in the main article so fails 3(b).
  Bencherlite^Talk 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist and merge back into Mathcounts. If the lead could be reasonably expanded with pertinent information, it might be alright, but the brevity of it suggests that this list probably isn't notable on its own, suggesting the need to merge back into the parent article. Harrias ^talk 12:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:51, 9 May 2012 [3].

Notified: Seav, Chipmunkdavis, Tambayan Philippines wikiproject — it was hard to find good people to notify, as almost everyone with more than four or five edits is presently inactive.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it's the worst featured list I've ever seen. I'm quite confident that our featured list standards don't permit pages with substantial awkwardness in wording, sections with just three words, multiple sections with no citations whatsoever, and bulleted lists of facts that aren't in prose. This page fails WP:FLCR #1 (poor writing), #4 (too-tiny sections), likely #5 (I doubt that the MOS permits long bulleted lists of facts), and core requirements such as WP:CITE. Other criteria aren't problematic (for example, aside from an uninterrupted string of edits by the same person last week, it's had about 40 edits all year, so it's quite stable), but these are enough to remove it easily. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This will take a lot of work to get (back) up to standards. Goodraise 23:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I'm not sure how to deal with the sections that use bullets in another way, but it fails sourcing, if nothing else. CMD (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist bit of a mess frankly. The timeline could probably spin off to a "Timeline of the provinces of the Philippines" article, there's really weak referencing (i.e. most refs aren't refs at all), and more failures to meet
  WP:MOS than I could cover here... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delist Way out of date with MOS, don't think those issues can be resolved during the timescale of this nom. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:51, 9 May 2012 [4].

Successful nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the Boston Marathon/archive2

Notified: Knowledgekid87, Gr5,WikiProject Running

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it was approved wih no barometre but simply vote counting. Seeing the FAC it involves a vote count of comments that said nothing for the reasons for support. And sources are poorLihaas (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why someone thought this list should be featured. I never noticed it was featured until today. It's a well done list and it is useful but I agree the sourcing could be better. Gr5 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. No longer up to standards. The first three words ("This page lists ...") speak volumes. Goodraise 23:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per not meeting our current standards for excellent prose, for having an unresolved maintenance tag, for having much of the lead unreferenced.... I don't think it's far from being a decent nomination candidate, but right now it's not our best work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'll refrain from offering an opinion here since another director has already declared himself, but suffice it to say that quite a bit of work will be needed to bring this up to modern FL standards. In particular, more thorough referencing is necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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