Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of unreleased Michael Jackson material/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 kept by The Rambling Man 18:00, 26 March 2012 [1].
List of unreleased Michael Jackson material edit
List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Pyrrhus16, SummerPhD, 109.100.51.176, 85.132.47.9, Frankyboy5, Chelo61, MjSoldierBoy, OnirMJ, Tassedethe, WaitingForConnection, Bamse, Lightlowemon, Dabomb87, The Rambling Man, Giants2008, WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Songs
I am nominating this for featured list removal because... This list has dramatically changed from the fully-sourced, easily navigable, visually appealing list that it was [upon promotion]. The table is gone, and ALL sources from the main list have been removed. The history suggests frequent, large edits and content disputes. 200 edits to date since the start of 2012. Rubiscous (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: No where even near FL quality, too many concerns to address at this time.--WillC 17:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the editor who brought this list to FL status. I have been in semi-retirement from Wikipedia since 2010 and the article has certainly been hugely messed over since then. I have just reverted to the last known stable and correct version of this list, as well as fixed all of the disambiguation links. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 18:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Repeated additions of unsourced, poorly sourced and fake sourced entries by various editors, including several promoting their websites have seriously compromised this list. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Not sure why I was notified, but I was upset to find that the primary editor's reversion into a decent version were reverted to the crap version by another editor. As someone who cares about quality, it disgusts me that someone can degrade a featured piece of content like that. The price we pay for being as open as we are, I suppose. Anyway, I reverted back to the good revision, and would like to see how things play out. If the good version stays, it should be savable, but if disputes form over the shape of the list I'm not sure what can be done (we do have a stability criterion, after all). Hoping for the best here. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there's no due cause to remove the list in its current state but should the edit-warring continue, I would suggest a temporary protection for the page to encourage discussion on the list's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion, to invoke the stability criterion there needs to be evidence that good faith attempts to resolve the dispute have been tried and have failed. I have not seen any such evidence: the first attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page was made six days ago, but has not received any response. Fully protecting the featured version and starting an RfC might well do the trick here. It's not as if there's a shortage of people interested in the subject matter. —WFC— 19:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. List has been improved. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 13:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was just vandalism. See Help:Reverting for instruction.--GoPTCN 10:46, 14 March 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.