Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

Removing featured lists in Wikipedia

This page is for the review and improvement of featured lists that may no longer meet the featured list criteria. FLs should be kept at current standards, regardless of when they were promoted. Any objections raised in the review must be actionable.

The FLC director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the exact timing of the process for each nomination. Nominations will last at least 14 days, and longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be kept, consensus must be reached that it still meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the delegates determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

actionable objections have not been resolved; or
consensus to delist has been reached; or
insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

Nominations may be closed earlier than the allotted two weeks if, in the judgment of the FLRC delegate, the list in the nomination:

has a clear consensus to merge or redirect to another article or list. This consensus may be shown in Articles for deletion, a discussion on the article's talk page, a discussion on the relevant WikiProject(s), or other community venues that present a tangible consensus to merge or redirect the article; or
contains a clear copyright violation and removal of the copyrighted material would severely degrade the quality of the list.

Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period as featured list candidates) or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt – such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.

A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. If a nomination is delisted, editors should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating at Featured list candidates.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

WP:FLRC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

Place {{subst:FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
From the FLRC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLRC talk page for assistance.
Below the preloaded title, write your reason for nominating the list, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Please note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.
Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FLRCMessage|ArticleName|archive=# of archive page}} (for example, {{subst:FLRCMessage|List of Presidents of the United States|archive=1}}) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured List status (identifiable through the Featured List Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). Leave a message at the top of the FLRC indicating whom you have notified and that notifications have been completed.

Nominations for removal

List of premiers of Alberta

Notified: WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Governments of Canada, and WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada; nominator is long inactive

2006 promotion; fails WP:FLCR 3b with 21(!) unsourced claims and almost no citations in the table and 5c, with MOS:COLHEAD and no column or row headers (although it looks like the latter issue is with {{Canadian first minister list}}). It also has over 2,000 words of prose, which should be copied to Premier of Alberta as appropriate. Talk page concerns went unanswered. charlotte ^👸♥ 06:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added col/rowscopes to the table template, but the list still needs to set a |caption= on the header template and remove the psuedo-header rowspans (e.g. "Premiers of the North-West Territories"). --Pres N 13:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach season 5

Notified: Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

This list is missing key sections (namely production and reception), has poor sourcing (too many primary sources or lower-quality sources), and overall fails to meet present-day expectations for season articles. See also the related FLRCs for seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per my reasoning on the previous 4 seasons. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per the last 4. Should not be a list article and isn't even close to GA. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments

Notified: User talk:The Squirrel Conspiracy, WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... This article is frankly horrible. It lacks modern information after 2022. It's not as simple as adding the information as essentially the entire smash scene regarding rankings and tournaments imploded in 2022 when Panda Global went bust, so you'd have to add a separate ultrank 2023.1 list, then you'd have to add a separate lumirank list from when Luminosity Gaming acquired ultrank. This makes it too much work to just be a few simple edits from staying in featured lists.

A good alternative would be someone taking on the job of fully fixing this page up - which is not an easy effort.

Furthermore: there are many grammar problems found in the article. Examples being:

"In a January 2020 interview, Nintendo president Shuntaro Furukawa indicated that the company did not intend to support esports, stating that the company's focus was on inclusiveness, and their ability to create games that many people want to play, without the need for prize money, was one of Nintendo's strengths" - Run on sentence. "was" shouldn't be used twice here as it makes the sentence grammatically incorrect (clause being "the company's focus was on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths) versus (the company's focus on ... was one of Nintendo's strengths)

"Ultimate was released on December 7, 2018, to critical acclaim,[8][9] and broke sales records in the United States and Europe en route to becoming the best-selling fighting game of all time." - comma splice

"Players control one of over 80 characters drawn from Nintendo and third-party game franchises, and try to knock their opponents out of an arena. " - awkward + incorrect comma usage considering this sentence stands alone. should be no comma or "franchises, with the goal being to..." or similar

Many such grammatical errors in the opening, as well as outdated information which is not easily fixable, leads me to believe this is not a featured list-worthy list. Witsako (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't care what happens to this article and I'm not going to put in any effort to fix it. In 2020, several sexual misconduct scandals broke in the competitive Smash community, and after seeing how much of that community essentially went "we don't care as long as they press buttons good", I want nothing to do with Smash anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely fair and I do not blame you whatsoever. Witsako (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Awards

Notified: The Rambling Man, Video games, Awards, Apps, Lists

Looking at when the was nominated, which was three days after the awards were presented, it definitely seemed like a second year of these were expected but that never happened. And looking at the sources used, most of them come from the Appy Awards website itself. Also don't believe that What Mobile is a reliable source. It just looks too barebones to really be called a Featured List with it just being two paragraphs and a table. GamerPro64 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I think it's possible that this is the best the article can ever be, which is commendable, but I also don't think every topic can qualify for featured status. I don't think this article qualifies for AFD, but the three secondary sources in Daily Telegraph, BBC, and What Mobile are all rather short and not particularly in-depth stories. A Google for "Appy Awards -wikipedia" does not turn up a lot of stuff that could be added, either. I don't think the secondary sourcing is strong enough here. SnowFire (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Frankly, I'm not even sure this passes WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG in general. That it should not be featured is a foregone conclusion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I don't think this award passes WP:GNG, since beyond the inaugural event which was itself barely covered by reliable sources, there has been no further significant coverage that indicates notability here (WP:SUSTAINED). I would probably nominate this article for AfD or for a merger to Carphone Warehouse after this FLRC closes. Either way I don't think there's enough material here to make a FL sadly. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't notable, but otherwise keep. This fails SUSTAINED and should be merged to Carphone Warehouse (and thus automatically lose FL), but it is stupid to arbitrarily declare that a list is too "barebones" when it meets the criteria just fine and there is no room for expansion. charlotte ^👸🎄 09:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FLC3 includes "does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article," so I'd say that there's a valid concern here. More generally, some editors would look askance at backdoor removing featured status via merging the article, so having some sort of RFC-ish discussion somewhere is valid before taking action, and doing such a discussion at FLRC seems fine to me. (And to be clear, per my earlier !vote, I don't think the article necessarily "needs" to be merged to lose Featured status. Insufficient sourcing should be a problem for featured status anywhere.) SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]