Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing Featured Lists in Wikipedia

If you feel a list on Wikipedia:Featured lists should no longer be featured, then this is the place to nominate it for demotion. Only lists that do not adhere to the featured list criteria should be listed. Objections raised must be actionable.

For a nomination to be demoted, consensus must be reached that it no longer meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators, as determined by the delegates who act as FLR directors, Dweller and Matthewedwards. Once a list has been nominated on this page for a minimum of two weeks, it will be removed from the list of featured lists if the consensus is to remove, and added to the list of former featured lists. All discussions will be logged at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/archive.

Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates), or lists that have recently survived a removal attempt—such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FLRC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  • Place {{FLRC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  • From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
  • (If you are resubmitting an article) Use the "Move" button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of television stations/archive1
  • Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the subpage.
  • Below it, write your reason for nominating the list. Note which of the featured list criteria that the list fails to meet.
  • Place {{Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/name of nominated article}} 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.
  • Finally, notify the user that nominated the page for FL status, as well as any relevant WikiProjects.

Contents


[edit] Lists nominated for removal

[edit] List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Where to start...First off, the lead is ridiculously short for such a long article. It does not mention anything about the shorts of DVDs located near the end of the article. The prose is a little bit short, though not the main problem the article has. For the table itself, it is not very appealing. Every part of the table is a different shade of gray. Even the place where summary text is placed is gray, which is not a good contrast of colors. In addition to all of this, the article has no sourcing for pretty much anything in the article, with particular concern toward the DVD section. Also, the article seems to have mini-trivia sections at the top of each section. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per short lead, which does not even give the premise of the series; however, this list is very easy to save. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

This list currently fails Cr. 2(insufficient lead), Cr.4(no section headings), and Cr.6(empty cells in the table) of WP:WIAFL. On top of that, this list relies solely on one source and was last updated in September of 2007.--Crzycheetah 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. -- Scorpion0422 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding Criteria 6. There are empty cells in the tables because players who have never scored a run cannot have high scores or an average, and likewise players who have never bowled cannot have bowling averages or best bowling figures. I'll put dashes in the box to make it better, would that suffice? SGGH speak! 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another comment CricInfo is probably the most reliable source for cricket information in the world, so there are worse sources to have only one of. SGGH speak! 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And a further comment I've also expanded the lead. SGGH speak! 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Dashes are fine. A Key section is needed for all statistical abbreviations and an explanation of "*" in the "HS" column. As for the references, where did the info in the lead come from? In that Cricinfo page, all I see is a table with 11 columns of stats while in this article, there are 14 columns. My question is where did the additional 3 columns come from?--Crzycheetah 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Information from the lead is from the other articles, but I shall shortly cite it for you. I'll add a section explaining the abbreviations. I'll try to write it in prose but would it be better in a list? I'll check the coloumns too. SGGH speak! 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would do if my university connection is messing up my attempts to get into CricInfo at the moment. SGGH speak! 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I much rather see abbr. in the table and a Key section where those abbr. are explained. For example, see List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks. Right now, the table is too widened.--Crzycheetah 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Strong Style Spirit", "Wrestling Information Archive" and "TitleHistories.com" seem to be rather questionable. Some of these sources have been deemed unuseable on FAs, so why should it be any different here? This is largely a test case because there are several other similar lists with questionable sourcing. -- Scorpion0422 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove (De-list)-It's funny how you Scorpion supported the promotion of the article to FL, and now you want to remove it ;). I hate to do this as a member of the project, but I checked out where the sources get their information from, "SSS" gets it from the promotion websites, but also fan sites, which is unreliable. Titlehistories.com also does that, as does "WIA". Since there are new standards to meet for FLC's sourcing wise, the article does not meet that.--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In my defense, back then I didn't care as much about whether the sources were reliable or not. -- Scorpion0422 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's ok. I just pointed it out, not to offend you in any way.SRX--LatinoHeat 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings and structures in London

This list currently has only six references, and about 50 buildings listed. On the list, it lacks a catagory for notes, and a timeline of tallest buildings. which is standerd on United States building list. It also has, MoS violations, and lacks a few meters to feet conversions. There is an unclear divide between buildings and structures. In the case of the BT Tower, even though it is listed by emporis and skyscraperpage as a non-building tower, it is listed here as a regular building. The Croydon transmitting station is listed, envn though there is already a List of tallest buildings and structures in Croydon. Also what does "Helter Skelter", "Cheesegrater", and "Walkie Talkie" mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think these matters are better raised on the talk page of the article. Most of the problems noted are relatively easily fixable; it has probably drifted since its first listing. Croydon is a small part of Greater London - and should probably be subsumed into this list (ie there doesn't seem to be a reason for a separate list for Croydon). Kbthompson (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of HIV-positive people

Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.

  • Keep—Glad the article has been improved during the process. Still a little hazy about the "pragmatic" approach to the requirement for comprehensiveness. I'll shut up about it and watch how the issue is treated. Utterly fails Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate,...

Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many people don't know their HIV-positive status.

A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?

What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.

A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column? TONY (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep It does include all of the major items. Of course only published in reliable sources. The fact that many people don't include their status or don't know about it is not a reason to say it is not comprehensive. These are obviously not included in reliable sources so can't be in the list. Regarding the bias towards the Anglo-Saxon world. The reason for that is that it was decided to not use red links in the list per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Only people with a Wikipedia article are included and since this is the English Wikipedia....

I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now Pornographic actor so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I not understanding something. If it's a "dynamic" or "incomplete" list, it must include at least all of the major items (people, in this case). The way the scope (and title) are framed, this is impossible. I know of someone "major" who should be listed, for example, but it's a private matter. At the moment, it's impossible to guage whether the selection is POV, and that is another breach of the criteria. Just how were they selected? TONY (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is not published in a reliable source how can it be "major"? Only in regards to Wikipedia of course. The criteria for the list are 1: Person has a Wikipedia article 2: HIV/AIDS information is published in a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding selection methods, I have spent quite a while trawling the archives of the New York Times and other newspapers, books on the history of AIDS, and Wikipedia itself (using Google). Given the nature of these sources, some geographical bias is inevitable (and consistent with the rest of en-WP). Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if anyone found a really notable omission. Trezatium (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP has always taken a pragmatic approach to judging the comprehensiveness of effectively unbounded people lists. If reviewers can find many more entries for the list, then it is probably not comprehensive. For a list this size, I'd expect to be able to find a few either overlooked or recently made public. You'd also expect to find a handful that might be added if only reliable sources could be found.
The title cannot contain the words "notable" or "famous" because WP guidelines forbid it, and WP lists only notable people anyway. I suggest the scope definition in the lead be tweaked to include "notable" to clarify things. Notability, for these purposes, has always been defined as having (or a reasonable expectation of having) an en-WP article. The HIV status of these people must be known and in the public domain. I think that is reasonably clear from the lead definition + the requirements of WP:BLP.
The list is biased but that is probably a consequence of being on en-WP, requiring reliable sources, the nature of the disease, the freedom to which certain societies allow people to be open about having it, and the extent to which journalists are interested in writing about people with some careers rather than others. If, for example, there are several notable Bollywood actors missing from the list, then that might imply the editors weren't researching wide enough. Some specific examples of insufficiency are needed. Colin°Talk 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That might help, but the title is still wrong: "List of known HIV-positive people" would normally be a tautology in this context, but here it's essential, since so many people in the categories chosen do not know.
PS Is there a list of people with Hep-C? TONY (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
List of people with hepatitis C, of course. I know there are missing attributes in the title of these lists, but WP:NAME encourages a compromise between simple, obvious titles and precise but unwieldy ones. Where do we draw the line: "List of people known to be HIV-positive, who are open about it, and have been written about by English-language journalists"? With Hep C, the unknowns utterly dwarf the knowns. That's mentioned briefly in the lead, but a full discussion of the epidemiology of Hep C belongs in the disease article. Perhaps the HIV list could mention some basic stats about what proportion of HIV-carriers are ignorant of their status? I wouldn't oppose changing the name to "List of known HIV-positive people" but don't feel it is "essential". Colin°Talk 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case, the scope of the list might be more carefully delineated in the lead. At the moment, "categorised" is vague in the first sentence, and seems to promise that all whose HIV-positive status is known (just to themselves and their doctor?) will be listed below. The second sentence says the list is 33.2 million (which, BTW, I find too precise at one decimal point, given the limits of the methodology).

This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its highest level, at around 33.2 million

TONY (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. 33 million is more appropriate here. Should the "categorized, alphabetical" aspect of the list be moved out of the lead sentence? How would you make "categorized" less "vague" and why? It is just an arbitrary grouping for convenience, rather than any exact scientific division. I'm puzzled about the "reached its highest level" statement. I first read this as "has peaked" but I actually think it means "is still growing". Could we just say "... December 2007, the number of people living with HIV is around 33 million"? Colin°Talk 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That number is derived directly from the source though. To be specific "33.2 million [30.6–36.1 million]". Why should it be a round number when the source itself does not specify a round number? Garion96 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That range is a confidence interval, though the source doesn't say what level of confidence they used (probably 95%). The value quoted (33.2) is the mean value of their estimates. Outside of a scientific paper, these number aren't particularly interesting and on its own, 33.2 million makes the reader think the confidence interval could be [33.1–33.3 million]. Saying "33 million" or even "over 30 million" is better. It is just an estimate. Colin°Talk 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I just don't like to change a source derived number. Even for something minor as this. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You could ask Eubulides. He knows far more than I do about what is acceptable and correct in this regard. Colin°Talk 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We've strayed onto an unexpected issue. There are more things at stake: I'm unwilling to give our readers the idea that the numbers can be calculated to that degree of accuracy, for some of the reasons I've given above. And there's the time problem: the numbers infected are growing at an alarming rate. In a year, how many will be added? 33 point something is very misleading in these circumstances. I'm happy for "well over 30 million". TONY (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence associates the estimate with a precise date, and in any case the growth is perhaps less dramatic than you think - see slide 4 here. UNAIDS have chosen to give three significant figures; why assume we know better? Trezatium (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Eubulides for his learned opinion. Tony, you hint that there are there other aspects of the article that you'd like examined? Colin°Talk 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)

  • I faced the same problem in AIDS #Epidemiology and settled for "Globally, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with HIV in 2007, including 2.5 million children." This says "estimated", which tells the reader the number isn't exact. For estimates where the range is quite wide I also gave the range, for example, "An estimated 2.5 million (range 1.8–4.1 million) people were newly infected in 2007, including 420,000 children."
  • The ranges are not 95% confidence intervals; they are merely plausibility bounds. Please see Understanding the new UNAIDS estimates, reference 4.
  • There is no single right way to present estimates like these; a lot of it depends on the presumed competence (and impatience level) of your readership.
  • Unless there are dueling estimates and considerable controversy (which is not the case here) I think it's better not to put the source in the main text, as it clutters up the text; a footnote is plenty.
  • I reviewed that paragraph in the lead and found a couple of problems. The cited source does not give the estimate "More than 25 million others have died" (at least, I could not find it anywhere in the cited source). There is also an unsourced claim that AIDS is one of the most destructive pandemics in recorded history.
  • The cited source does estimate 2007 deaths, so we can include that. I think it helpful to briefly mention that about 15% are children (this fits into the Ryan White picture) and that the vast majority of deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa (to give a global perspective).
  • I made this change to try to address the above problems. Hope it helps.

Eubulides (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to FLC that I quail at the potential for POV (in inclusion/exclusion, whether on purpose or by accident) in the selection process for many lists of people. Even more so for lists of, say, alumni of univerisities, where it's impossible for reviewers to tell whether there's a bias in the selection. Adult film actors is a bad term: could be antonym of "child film actors", an unfortunate couplet. At least a hyphen (adult-film actors), or call a spade a spade. Could the title at least be changed to "List of notable HIV-positive people"? TONY (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But "notable" is different per the dictionary and per WP:N. A reader would think the title refers to the former while it actually refers to the latter. indopug (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it looks comprehensive and complete enough to me. GreenJoe 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is admittedly not complete. However, it's impressively comprehensive, and thus meets the FL criteria. My involvement with it began 3 months ago when I added Terry Dolan, who I considered to be a serious omission. After adding him, I spent a little time searching for noteworthy omissions and did not find any.
It would, however, be helpful to add some words to the intro to clarify that the list is limited to notable people (including some who are notable solely in connection with their infection).
In spite of the "rule" that all names on the list must have their own articles, I see at least one name that is on the list without having an article. The former article about Gugu Dlamini (a woman who who was stoned and stabbed to death for admitting she had AIDS) was converted to a redirect to this list article. IMO, it is reasonable for the list to include people who lack articles if they are notable only in connection with their infection status. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: It will never be complete (we're in for a lot of lawsuits if this can't be reliably sourced) but Wikipedia's policy is that it strives for verifiability, not truth. Therefore, verifiable entries only is enough for an FL, it will never be complete as more people are born/diagnosed every second - but what it has is enough...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cricket terms

I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion0422 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal This may be a case of outdated links, new references could easily be found, dictionaries of cricket terms are abundant. Here for example is a CricInfo cricket glossary, and CricInfo is the most used source for cricket in wikipedia I should imagine. This pdf by the ECB also serves as a reference, as does this BBC article, and this article from the Sussex CCC, and What is a Googly by Rob Eastaway. SGGH speak! 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, good. If you're going to add the refs, I suggest checking to make sure every term is covered. Also, the lead could use a little polishing, and it wouldn't hurt to have a lead image. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is probably a good time to do a cleanup (is Dweller listening ?) I wouldn't bother if terms that are very common aren't sourced, but there are quite a few which are not well-known - for eg, Xavier Tras, Rogers, Pongo, Popper, Mullygrubber etc. We also need to make sure that these have some popularity and are not one-off usage (even if that one use is in BBC). Tintin 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can do the work yes, but with other things on my plate it may not be for a day or so. SGGH speak! 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me know if any of the terms aren't covered in your references. I can probably fill in most of any gaps from Barclays World of Cricket, a cricket encyclopaedia which has a glossary section. JH (talk page) 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote to endorse as I have discovered that the article is in fact a near complete copyright violation of this page. Each entry will have to be rewritten and then referenced to that page, which is in fact a good source. SGGH speak! 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is almost certain that Sussex site copied it from Wikipedia and is a copyright violation as they haven't acknowledged the source. If you look at the first entry Agricultural shot - "this is a swing across the line of the ball (resembling a scything motion) played without much technique. Often one that results in a chunk of the pitch being dug up by the bat. A type of a slog. This term is thought to have originated in the city-country games in Australia, where the farmers normally had less technique, but more power than their city rivals."
  • The first two lines were added by Hig Hertenfleurst on Aug 6, 2004. The Australian connection was added by an anon on Sep 6, 2005. The scything motion was added by yet another anon of August 25, 2005. What are the chances that all these people separately copied this from the Sussex site, and left everything else there alone ? Tintin 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm... perhaps I reacted to hastily. Does this mean that Sussex can't be a source nevertheless? SGGH speak! 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we can't use Sussex as a source now. That would be a self-reference. By the bye, should someone contact Sussex County Cricket Club and gently remind them about Wikipedia's licencing requirements? -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay I will remove that source, however I have added loads of citations using the other three, but still more are needed. SGGH speak! 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a copyvio. I helped write many of the terms. The Internet archiev lists the sussex page since July 9, 2006. [1] =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Back to opposing the removal then, however there are some ommissions which I'll help fill, and more references needed. The massive use of the cricinfo reference has left the notes section rather ugly... SGGH speak! 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a long process :( SGGH speak! 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support removal

  • Final sentence of first paragraph needs citing - fixed SGGH speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Each term needs citing
  • Am working on it SGGH speak! 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Have to wonder if it even belongs in Wikipedia at all, per WP:NOTDICDEF.
  • Not really. I don't use Wiktionary the way I do Wikipedia, so don't know if they have Featured content. If they do, this should be Featured there, not here. User:Nichalp's arguments for it staying on Wikipedia don't really inspire me. Sorry. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH (talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Article needs a lot of referencing work to be due its status, as well as removing OR and tightening up definitions. (I just had a bit of a bash at the "A"s) That said, there's no deadline. I'm very busy with Bradman's article, but there's enough contributors to WP:CRIC to be able to sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—I'm impressed that the author(s) has used fine judgement in improving on the definitions in the sources (I was all ready to find copyright breaches, but didn't). However, the whole thing needs a good massage for formatting issues. Some bits need copy-editing; there are a few MOS breaches. I hope it's saved, but can't be without significant work. TONY (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. GreenJoe 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The FAC disagrees, I don't think that kind of statement can be made without discussion. SGGH speak! 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of ISS spacewalks

I am nominating this page for removal because it has been tagged for a lack of citations since March (and doesn't appear to have any kind of main reference for the bulk of the list) and its lead is a sum total of one sentence. -- Scorpion0422 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support removal, fails the basic FL criteria concerning verifiability through referencing. The layout is also off putting and I'd believe it has a few MoS violations.Collectonian (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal Shame, I like the idea of this one.. :(
    • Layout of WP:LS is strange with contents table to the right and lead image to the left, and does not adequately introduce the article
    • Fails MOS on WP:BOLDTITLE,
    • No references for any of the spacewalk, which considering there is a notes column, there should be
    • No explanation of what the purple rowspans are supposed to mean (my guess is each different mission, but I'm not supposed to guess)
    • Sections are oddly grouped; a 3 year period, a 1 year period, a 2 year period, and a 4 year period
  • In short, it fails WP:WIAFL Cr. 1, 2, 4 and 6, as well as general MOS guidelines -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal Too many MoS breaches like the bold link and the number "6" in the lead, odd layout, and too few references. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove due to lack of citations. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove due to lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Senate committees

I am nominating this page for removal because it has no citations and no references (criterion 1c, it has an inadequate lead (2a) and according to the page (and page history) it hasn't been updated since 2007. -- Scorpion0422 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support removal, fails multiple FL criteria, most notably/concernably is a seeming complete lack of referencing for the actual list contents. Also agree the lead is inadequate, lacking both context and decent formatting. Collectonian (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal
    • The lead is lacking any kind of useful prose to explain the topic and introduce the list
    • Fails the WP:MOS, specifically WP:WAI for having small text
    • The infobox is located at the bottom of the page for some strange reason
    • The entire list (excepting 3 entries) is totally unverifiable

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with Scorpion. Original nominator appears to have abandoned it. Colin°Talk 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per Scorpion and Matthew. Especially, I don't like the small text that is throughout the table.--Crzycheetah 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)