Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/March 2025
Keep
edit- 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 delisted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC) .[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly sourced. None of the entries since 2010 have any sources added. The website for the subject is no longer active. It also is unclear it is even a list, based on it's title, it is about the hall, not a list of it's members. meamemg (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, with a lot of work, sources for the nominees could be pieced together; at least some of them are probably listed on archived versions of the HOF's website. And while the page is about the hall of fame, it's basically an award, and awards are generally suitable as lists. The more pressing matter is: is this even a notable topic? Many of the sources only prove the wrestlers exist, with no mention of their induction into this group. While I am no expert in wrestling, I am highly skeptical that a regional hall of fame can be notable enough for a standalone article or list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since nobody has stepped up or expressed interest in addressing the issues, I'm going to go ahead and delist it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 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 delisted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC) .[reply]
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, 4, 5, 6, and 7. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per my comments on the previous seasons. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Not a list (no season article is a list article), not even close to GA status. I wonder at what point these process won't be as slow and tedious. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've thought about trying to bundle nominations, but since each was promoted individually, I reasoned they should each be demoted individually. Also, I don't think the promotion bot would handle a bundled nomination correctly. Perhaps in situations like these, the minimum two-week discussion period should be reconsidered. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2025 (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 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC) .[reply]
- 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]
Closing as removed; I'm separately going to merge to Carphone Warehouse as an editor. --PresN 22:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.