The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:05, 24 April 2011 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I am pretty sure it is a CFORK of List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada). It is incredibly short, and merging it with List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada) (current FL) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) seems completely reasonable. Nergaal ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Have very similar scope and look fine by FL? standards. Nergaal ( talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by The Rambling Man 18:02, 24 April 2011 [4].
This list was promoted to FL status way back in July 2006. Time appears to have done the list no real favors, and it fails several modern criteria...
Comment On the merge front, User:Gnevin knows how to get people talking, and also knows the Wikipedia rugby scene better than the average FLRC reviewer. Could be worth dropping him a line. I'll get to work on the technical things, but it would be unreasonable to ask someone to work on the prose prior to a possible merge of this nature, and that decision should therefore be made ASAP. — W F C— 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments
Nergaal ( talk) 04:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal for the same reason as stated for Season 1, Season 2 and Season 3. Episode list is unreferenced, Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent, and plot summaries are inadequate. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it will be a very good section at Geography of Sweden. This list currently fails 3(b) criterion. Cheetah (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it does not meet the criteria.
-- Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments nomination comments all need addressing, my variations below, currently a delist for me as well though.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Remove – In addition to the issues raised above, I noticed several other things, which combined with what has been found already push me to the delist side for now.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [8].
When this list was promoted it had 9 entries, and now only 6 still exist. To deserve the FL status, I feel like the scope of the list needs to be broadened a bit, to include something more than the 6 champion titles. Nergaal ( talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This should either (a) be an article that lists the history of the champions, or (b) be merged into the main WWE article. (a) is a lot of work and would be outside the scope of this FLRC I suspect, (b) is a clear delist selection. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 20:08, 2 April 2011 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because a decent portion of the article's information is outdated, and some content is either redundant or lacks a reliable source. Posts were made on the talk pages of both the list and the respective WikiProject with input from only one user; no edits to the list have been made since I posted my concerns.
The average weekday ridership in the main station list is from 2009, while the ridership in the "top stations" sections is from either 2008 or 2006 (therefore outdated). The "top stations" lists are also redundant because the stations with the highest ridership can easily be determined by sorting the main column. The station codes also do not seem necessary for this article, as they are only used internally by WMATA and appeared to be unnotable for inclusion in this list. Additionally, the source for the station codes for the Silver Line station is unreliable and no reliable source can be found. – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments Please note that the 2010 station figures have not come out yet, so the article is still using the most recent figures. If someone finds the official figures, I would appreciate a link here. I agree that the list of busiest stations is unnecessary, and that the by jurisdiction list can also be easily created by sorting the main table twice. I diesagree with the nominator in that the station codes should go because they are "not notable". It is fully credible that a railfan or other specially interested reader would want a list of the internal codes to aid in reading official documents from WMATA, for instance. I agree that the codes for the silver line are from a unreliable source, and I have no idea if reliable sources are available, so that at current they should go. I don't see any reason to add an {{ update}} banner to the article at this point of time. As a postscript, note that the original nominator of the FLC has retired. I am therefore going to be bold and edit the article in those points where I agree with Dream out loud. Arsenikk (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments could easily be saved in my opinion.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by The Rambling Man 18:05, 24 April 2011 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I am pretty sure it is a CFORK of List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2000s (Canada). It is incredibly short, and merging it with List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada) (current FL) and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) seems completely reasonable. Nergaal ( talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Have very similar scope and look fine by FL? standards. Nergaal ( talk) 18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by The Rambling Man 18:02, 24 April 2011 [4].
This list was promoted to FL status way back in July 2006. Time appears to have done the list no real favors, and it fails several modern criteria...
Comment On the merge front, User:Gnevin knows how to get people talking, and also knows the Wikipedia rugby scene better than the average FLRC reviewer. Could be worth dropping him a line. I'll get to work on the technical things, but it would be unreasonable to ask someone to work on the prose prior to a possible merge of this nature, and that decision should therefore be made ASAP. — W F C— 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments
Nergaal ( talk) 04:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal for the same reason as stated for Season 1, Season 2 and Season 3. Episode list is unreferenced, Information about the Japanese video releases is completely absent, and plot summaries are inadequate. DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 15:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it will be a very good section at Geography of Sweden. This list currently fails 3(b) criterion. Cheetah (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it does not meet the criteria.
-- Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments nomination comments all need addressing, my variations below, currently a delist for me as well though.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Remove – In addition to the issues raised above, I noticed several other things, which combined with what has been found already push me to the delist side for now.
The list was removed by Dabomb87 00:15, 8 April 2011 [8].
When this list was promoted it had 9 entries, and now only 6 still exist. To deserve the FL status, I feel like the scope of the list needs to be broadened a bit, to include something more than the 6 champion titles. Nergaal ( talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment This should either (a) be an article that lists the history of the champions, or (b) be merged into the main WWE article. (a) is a lot of work and would be outside the scope of this FLRC I suspect, (b) is a clear delist selection. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 20:08, 2 April 2011 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because a decent portion of the article's information is outdated, and some content is either redundant or lacks a reliable source. Posts were made on the talk pages of both the list and the respective WikiProject with input from only one user; no edits to the list have been made since I posted my concerns.
The average weekday ridership in the main station list is from 2009, while the ridership in the "top stations" sections is from either 2008 or 2006 (therefore outdated). The "top stations" lists are also redundant because the stations with the highest ridership can easily be determined by sorting the main column. The station codes also do not seem necessary for this article, as they are only used internally by WMATA and appeared to be unnotable for inclusion in this list. Additionally, the source for the station codes for the Silver Line station is unreliable and no reliable source can be found. – Dream out loud ( talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments Please note that the 2010 station figures have not come out yet, so the article is still using the most recent figures. If someone finds the official figures, I would appreciate a link here. I agree that the list of busiest stations is unnecessary, and that the by jurisdiction list can also be easily created by sorting the main table twice. I diesagree with the nominator in that the station codes should go because they are "not notable". It is fully credible that a railfan or other specially interested reader would want a list of the internal codes to aid in reading official documents from WMATA, for instance. I agree that the codes for the silver line are from a unreliable source, and I have no idea if reliable sources are available, so that at current they should go. I don't see any reason to add an {{ update}} banner to the article at this point of time. As a postscript, note that the original nominator of the FLC has retired. I am therefore going to be bold and edit the article in those points where I agree with Dream out loud. Arsenikk (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments could easily be saved in my opinion.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply