Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

"WP:FLRC" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Flagged revisions.

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 The Rambling Man, 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 A bot will update the list talk page after the list has been kept or the nomination has been archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLRC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates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.  – Table of Contents – Closing instructions

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log Toolbox Featured list cleanup listing Featured list cleanup task force Article statistics

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

BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year

Notified: Rambo's Revenge, WikiProjects Sports, Awards, BBC, Lists

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has not been significantly updated since 2009, and has several inherent problems, including:

1. Tables are using flags to describe people's place of birth, not their sporting nationality, in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG. This has been mentioned at the talkpage and WT:SPORTS with no response at either location
2. It is awarded to the sportsperson aged 17 or under as of 1 January of that year- unsourced, as the source [1] from 2008 says it's for 16 or under. If the rules have been updated, newer sources are needed
3. All winners to date have been British- unsourced and contradicts the fact that the table lists Sky Brown as Japanese. Not clear how British is being defined here
4. The only two non-English recipients to win the award are Scottish tennis player Andy Murray, who won in 2004, and British-Japanese skateboarder Sky Brown, who won in 2021, and represents Great Britain whilst living in both Japan and the United States.- unsourced, Murray isn't mentioned anywhere, and the source doesn't describe Brown as non-British. This also contradicts the text highlighted in the point above
5. Judging criteria- source is from 2008, if it's still the same criteria, can a newer source be used for this?
6. Rationale of all people seems to violate MOS:QUOTE, as they're all excessive quotes
7. Why are only the winners listed? BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award has the top three, which seems better (and more encyclopedic than listing the rationale)

All in all, this list is now way short of the standard for a featured list, unless significant improvements are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Support - I agree with everything here, taking most concern with Brown's nationality issue, outdated sources and the availability of second and third-place nominations. Usually I'm not a fan of listing 2nd and 3rd's for awards as it can ruin lists like Liverpool POTY and The FA England Awards, but in this case the information seems freely available to make a complete 'encyclopaedic' list including the other nominees. Idiosincrático (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose This list is rescuable. I have removed the flags and the comments on nationality and clarified the criteria for eligibility per the latest ceremony. The rationale section could be reworded or removed. A brief search shows that they didn't publically reveal the top three until recently but this could be added. I'll try to amend more when I have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)