Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Royal Rumble/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [1].
Royal Rumble edit
Royal Rumble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Nikki311, Professional wrestling WikiProject
This January 2008 promotion has numerous deficiencies that cause it to fail the current FL criteria, and in several respects has declined in quality since it was promoted.
- Most glaring issue is the original research tag in the Royal Rumble records section, which didn't exist when this list became an FL.
- In addition, there is a verification tag in this section. Almost none of the records are cited, which is an automatic failure of FL criteria.
- Ref 88 is a dead link, and I'm not convinced that www.mondaynightwarriors.com is a reliable source anyway.
- Cite error for ref 87.
- I'm not sure if any of the first three general references are reliable; About.com probably isn't, at least. What I am sure of is that the general references shouldn't be listed twice. Can't remember seeing any article with this issue before.
- The lead is short at one paragraph. Some basic statistics could be introduced, such as venues to host the Royal Rumble multiple times, most frequent champion(s), most recent champions, etc.
- The table is outdated in regards to accessibility requirements: see MOS:DTT for more on what needs to be done.
- One more thing: Since the Royal Rumble itself is a pay-per-view event, and the content generally relates to a certain type of match at that event, should the list be titled Royal Rumble (match)? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that most of the "Records" section be removed, as much of it is trivial. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as well as the above, there are dab links, appalling English ("Most Times Becoming Runner-up"), raw URLs in the refs, I'm seeing plenty of issues with the refs. Not good enough, not by a long chalk. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist A lot of problems already listed with the article and no one's attempting to resolve any of them. Afro (Talk) 11:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.