Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/January 2013

Kept

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 08:11, 28 January 2013 [1].

---

Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography

Notified: Discographies WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list does not meet WP:FLC. WP:Record chart explicitly states that the Tophit.ru website for Russian charts should not be used. The last paragraph of the lead is a complete mess and makes no sense at all. The article's references include sources such as fan sites and Youtube. There is no source provided that an album will be released in 2013; even if so, it should not be there in the album table without an actual name. Some of the references need work (eg. "Digitalspy.co.uk"). Till 01:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Delist too much wrong here...

• Seven dead links plus some uncertain ones.
• Infobox/lead completely in disagreement with each other.
• As noted above, lead third para is wild and bad.
• No sign of which territory release dates are relevant to.
• No ref for the EP.
• Last two singles unreferenced.
• Video album unreferenced.
• Several video directors unreferenced.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Haven't looked at the list and have no opinion on it, but I'm concerned that we may be stretching any editors interested in working on the music-related lists too far. This is the fourth FLRC the nominator has up at the moment, and I wouldn't feel comfortable with any more right now. I'd actually suggest that a couple of the current FLRCs be closed before another discography is nominated. If someone wants to work on these articles to prevent them from being delisted, we should at least give them a fair shot and not overwhelm them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Consensus has decreed for the Ashley Tisdale discography that the list should be kept and any remaining issues can be fixed independent from the FRLC, so that's the responsibility of a FLC director to close, not me/anyone else. As for the Britney Spears, actionable concerns have been left unaddressed for almost three weeks, and as such the FLRC should come to a close soon. That leaves this FLRC and the Jessica Simpson FLRC 'open' to discussion. Till 13:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I would agree that continually filling our limited resources at FLRC with discographies is unlikely to yield good results, i.e. work and effort to retain the featured status. Perhaps find some other types of FLs that you'd feel happy to nominate for delisting in the near future. But obviously, thanks for your efforts here, always appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Having read these comments, I have now extensively redeveloped the page, reformatting the tables, last paragraph of the prose, infobox, references, etc. Hopefully, it is now above the deletion standard, but I'll see what you all think. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Impressive work, thank you. Have removed my oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep. No glaring problems. Goodraise 01:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Giants2008 19:22, 20 January 2013 [2].

---

List of Test cricket hat-tricks

Notified: Cricket WikiProject

This is an FL that passed all the way back in March 2006, and has numerous issues that result in a failure to meet FL criteria in 2013. Among the problems are the following:

• Most significantly, the entire Notable Test hat-tricks section is unsourced and has been tagged since July 2011. There's a lot of ugly bolding in this section, and some of the more notable feats would be better off in the lead. It's also unclear what makes an accomplishment notable, particularly since there's no referencing proving that it is noteworthy.
  • "Notable hat-tricks" section has now gone, with some of the content being merged into an expended lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• The lead has the old-fashioned bold "This is a list of" opening, and is underwhelming in general.
  • Old bold opening has gone, and hopefully the lead is now more engaging -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• The table needs work to meet WP:ACCESS.
  • Resolved (I think - not an expert on ACCESS requirements.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not a big fan of the external links in the Test column, which should probably be references instead.
• No need for the first two words in the List of Test hat-tricks section.
  • Gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• See also should come before Notes.
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Many notes are unreferenced.
  • Seems to have been sorted - the notes were pretty extraneous and have been removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note 22 has a bare link.
  • Seems to have been resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• One of the general references is to h2g2, an online encyclopedia that is probably not a reliable source. Surely we can find a better source than this?
  • Gone -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at this one, and will hopefully be able to start work later today..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Between edits by myself and Vensatry (talk · contribs), all that appears to be left from the above is the issue of the ext links to scorecards within the table. I will endeavour to get to that ASAP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • For good measure, I've also added some more images and a key.......although I can't think of a decent way to word the definition of the "no." column.....I'm open to suggestions ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep Chris and Venastry have done some admirable work! I've made a few adjustments, but I think the list now meets the criteria once again. NapHit (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment re-review once the multiple refs which just say "tbc" are filled out. I thought the same, the so-called notable hat-tricks needed to go, with no definitive {{inclusion}} criteria. Good work so far, please ping me once the refs are all sorted out. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep so far so good, refs are fixed up, I've fixed the dab link, it's in a good state. My only comment would be the dubious use of a gallery, not great in my opinion, but it's simply that, an preference, nothing more. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just to provide more space for the list. Zia Khan 06:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep I've made some changes and I think this is batter than the previous version. The references are sorted out. Zia Khan 00:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments – A lot of quality work has been done here, and this is just about ready to be kept. A couple little nagging issues remain, though.

• "In the five-match series between a Rest of the World XI against England in 1970". "against" → "and"?
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not a big fan of the gallery above the key either.
  • Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Names should be sorting by last name, not first name. I know this doesn't apply for a few of the nations, but surely the bowlers from England, South Africa, and Australia/New Zealand, at least, should be sorting by last name. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have added sortnames for all bowlers other than those from Pakistan/India/Sri Lanka. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I am can advise on how their names should sort..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Giants2008 19:22, 20 January 2013 [3].

---

Jessica Simpson discography

Notified: Discographies WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is not an accurate representation of Wikipedia's best lists. Large amounts of the lead which discuss the album sales appear to be unsourced. The article needs a copy-edit to properly feature professional prose ("After dropping out of Sony"). The album table lists both the certifications and sales in the same column, some of which are not referenced. The singles table contains eleven countries whereas ten is the requirement. The references are in terrible condition (21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32 are the worst); some are missing publishers, or are merely bare links to the site. Till 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Delist right now, primarily for the following reasons: Very strange (and useless) so-called references as noted by Till. Bad start in the intro sentence with a boldlink. (only joking... the lead image has very weird knees). Video albums not mentioned in the lead. "at one hundred twenty-three " see MOS:NUM. No clear indication which territory the release dates are relevant to, nor where they are referenced. Not our "finest work". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

*Delist per Till's concerns. Statυs (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Comments from Status: Why is "extended plays" a part of the title? They are both compilations. Missing albums: A Special Christmas Collection, Triple Feature There doesn't appear to be any sources linking the promotional singles to being promotional singles. "Who We Are" is a normal single (available to buy, apart from an album - it's even listed as a single on its article).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Delist – while smaller things can be quickly addressed, it's the sourcing that's left me worried. A lot of statistics are uncited and sources like Artistdirect and IMBD are used. I'm not quite sure about the vnuemedia citations either. It's too bad that this article has deteriorated. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry for the very late response, I was not notified of this discussion. Anyway, I've managed to fix the major issues (the bad refs and unsourced sales/certs were added by a sockpuppet of User:Punkox and so I have reverted them). Replaced Artistdirect and Imdb refs. Vnuemedia is actually Billboard's paid archive. And in the FLC of this list, it was suggested that Sales and certs be merged. TRM, I can replace the picture if you'd like me to. 五代 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You were not notified because you had a "Retired" template on your talk page. Till 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks Mags for fixing these up. I think we're close; some more: "but it failed to match the success of Sweet Kisses" → "which failed to match the success of Sweet Kisses" (less words, right) "As of 2009, In This Skin has sold three million copies in the US and produced four singles." – a bit awkward since it's been over three years to say "as of". Maybe "By 2009, In This Skin sold 3 million..." You've consistently formatted the chart positions (words vs figures) but what about the sales numbers (1.9 million vs three million). "In 2006, following a move to Epic Records after her deal with Columbia ended" My suggestion would probably be to format all chart positions as numerals since you have "number 123" and spelling that out would be lengthy. In the infobox, compilation albums link doesn't work. Header: "Compilation albums and Extended plays" – are these both compilation albums? If so, then cut "Extended plays". If not, then separate into two tables. I counted fifteen singles in the table, not fourteen. For certifications in the list, instead of country abbreviations, certification company abbreviations are used instead, with the home country certification of the singer first (in this case, RIAA), then the rest in alphabetical order. "'Irresistible' (So So Def Remix) (featuring Lil Bow Wow)" is not cited in the Promotional singles table. The references look like they need cleaning up for consistency and no typos. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC) For Rejoyce: The Christmas Album, what certification association (not "US")? I just counted 17 singles in the table. Weird. Are you sure this is a reliable source? Check for consistency in italicization of non-print sources (Allmusic, Chartwatch...). Ref 65 needs to be fixed. In External links, we've a wikilink to MTV.com but not Allmusic. Music video quantity should be consistent in the lead and infobox. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Done. As for ilovethedowner.org, it's the official website of John Downer, producer and associate director for music videos/TV commercials etc. If it's not reliable, I can link to the Aladdin Platinum Edition DVD. Would that be okay? 五代 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that'd be better, IMO. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Done. 五代 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Closer: Number of singles in infobox and lead is still inconsistent with number of singles listed in the table. "In October of 2010" – No need for "of". The allmusic citations do not seem to identify the labels of the albums. It's found in the Releases tab of the site, but that isn't given in this article. This should be corrected for all albums/video albums, etc. Is the "US" column in Chart peak positions needed in Compilation albums? It's blank. In the singles table, in Certifications, we've still got "US" and "AUS". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) These links (refs 51 and 81) are gone. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Please let me know in case I've screwed up somewhere :D 五代 (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Point 4 hasn't been addressed yet, and regarding point 3, since the Releases tab has a separate url (http://almusic.com/.../releases). I think we need separate citations for that. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Added separate citations. The blank US column in the Compilations section (sorry I forgot to respond to that comment last time!). Well, I'm sure most of the readers look for the album's position in the main Billboard album chart, that is Billboard 200. The Dance/Electronic albums chart is a component chart and if the album charts only on that, it means it wasn't successful. I added the US column to allow readers to evaluate the success of the compilations and also because she's an American artist. I can gladly remove it if you want me to. 五代 (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Don't forget citations for video albums too. And w.r.t. the US Billboard 200, I think it can be removed at the end of the day, because without the column, it's clear that he albums never charted on it. But if you still feel strongly about the keeping of the column, I'm fine with that too. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Added. So, is it okay if I keep it? :) 五代 (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Sure, no problem with me! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Thank you! I hope all the issues have been addressed. 五代 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Hi Mags. Sorry for annoying you once more: I just found two more things that may need responding to: We need a source saying that A Special Christmas Collection (EP) was released on CD. And why is there "EP" in brackets? Is it part of the title? In "Other charted songs", what do the dashes denote? I'm confident I'll be able to support the keeping of this FL once these are taken care of! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC) 1) Oops, my mistake! I confused it with something else. Fixed. It is not classified an EP, but a seven track album. 2) Added note. Thank you so much for taking time to review this list WP. 五代 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep – evidenced by the resolved comments above, this list has improved greatly and seems to once again be FL material. Well done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 08:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And the singles and albums tables have different countries. Till 12:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

All done, please let me know if there are any remaining issues. And, Till, I don't remember reading that anywhere. Can you link me to a page that says so, please? 五代 (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask Status. Till 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can ask him but I don't quite get it. I don't mean to be rude, you were the one who pointed out the issue. 五代 (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You asked for a page that says it, and Status was the one who noted the general issue at The Veronicas discography. So ask him. Till 15:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've asked him although this is the first time I've heard this. 五代 (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Till. Status has said that it's not a requirement for a discography. I think I've addressed all your issues, except this of course. 五代 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding, although preferred by many (and it was at one point a part of the discography guidelines, I guess it was removed at some point) a list cannot be not promoted/not kept as a FL for that reason.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So when I have different countries in the tables, it has to be changed, but when someone else has done the same, it's okay to be promoted/kept. Such double standards I see. Till 03:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take it that way Till. As he said, it's not a part of the guideline anymore and that's why I decided not to modify the tables. 五代 (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. All comments are typically from how somebody feels an article should be. As I said, I would prefer them to all be the same, but that's not a part of any FL guidelines. If you didn't change them on The Veronicas discography I would have no reason to oppose its promotion. Also, at that time I thought it was still part of the guideline; I checked again and it has since been removed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Although I'd like to see all the same countries used in the tables, for consistency, it's no reason for the list to be removed from its status. Ryoga Godai, you've done a great job with the article!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both WP and Zach. 五代 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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 The Rambling Man 08:33, 28 January 2013 [4].

---

List of FLCL episodes

Notified: WikiProject Anime and manga

The consensus has decided to merge this episode list into the main article, FLCL. Therefore, if merged, then Featured List status will be null and void. George Ho (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick delist. Just a formality. Goodraise 04:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Already merged. --George Ho (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Giants2008 19:30, 20 January 2013 [5].

---

List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

With reluctance, I have to concede defeat on this one. The level of maintenance required to keep this list up-to-date is far higher than I can commit to; a lot of the tables have not been updated since I took on the previous FLRC more than two years ago. Given the nature of the list I strongly believe that each country should have an up-to-date paragraph, because it would be impossible to adequately cover the topic in a lead alone. 28 countries do not have a paragraph at all, and most of the remaining ones are significantly outdated. Now that the RSSSF is winding down, I haven't even mentioned the referencing work that would be requiried in bringing this up to 2013 standards. The raw ingredients are there if someone is willing to take this on, and the emergence of Wikidata may help with maintaining the tables in future, but keeping this featured would nonetheless be a massive undertaking. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think that most of the updating work would be simplified if the tables were actually transcluded from subpages, since most of those subpages are probably followed by editors from those countries. Nergaal (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  Phase two of Wikidata should eliminate the need for subpages (there would be no point in creating subpages for content which will be updated externally). Given that Wikidata should become fit for purpose in 2013, if updates to the tables were the primary issue, I'd probably have sat on my hands until then. The biggest part of the challenge is with getting the prose done and the referencing up to date, in my opinion. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No sure what is the wikidata supposed to do, but I was thinking of transcuding the tables from the List of football clubs from country X subpages. Nergaal (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delist – A good number of the countries' listings are outdated, meaning that the list no longer meets FL criteria. A shame, because it received a lot of quality work that led to it being kept at the last FLRC. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delist too much work that needs to be done for it to meet the criteria and no one willing to do it. NapHit (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delist a really good list and one with the finest intentions but one that appears to be a nightmare for upkeep purposes. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Giants2008 19:30, 20 January 2013 [6].

---

List of delegates to the Millennium Summit

Notified: WP:WPFR, WP:POLITICS

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is a very old FL with pretty obvious problems, like short lead and lack of references. Nominator has retired, and it is listed as a low importance among projects, which makes me believe that there will be litte interest in improving the list anytime soon. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Delist for clear problems against current criteria, most importantly that it should most likely be merged with the main (very short) article on the Millennium Summit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Delist. Clearly wouldn't be promoted in its current state. The short lead alone is reason enough to delist. Goodraise 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 NapHit 09:44, 5 January 2013 [7].

---

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs

Notified: WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the article fails the stability criteria; it has gone through one deletion discussion and is currently at WP:DRV. The discussion at Afd raised numerous concerns about the notability of this topic. Also, 16 out of the list's 90 sources are dead, meaning that 18% of the article is unverifiable. Till 00:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Delist. A further underlying and important issue is that several of the reference links fail WP:LINKVIO - something that should have been addressed before being considered as a featured article. What's the point in WP having policies with legal implications if we are going to ignore the policy? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Keep listed – the discussion at afd/cfd raised numerous irrelevant red-herrings about the notability of each item but no substantive objections. 18% of the article may be unverified but unverifiable is not a valid deduction. A better approach would be to ask for valid verifications of the dead sources, with removal if no source is provided after a reasonable time. Oculi (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Verifiability is policy. Per WP:FLCR, Featured lists must meet "the requirements for all Wikipedia content (particularly naming conventions, neutrality, no original research, verifiability, citations, reliable sources, living persons, non-free content and what Wikipedia is not)". 'Asking for valid verifications of the dead sources' is unnacceptable, and besides: my attempts to retrieve archives of these dead links failed. Till 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Why is it unacceptable to request that a dead link be replaced with a valid link, failing which in say 4 weeks the unsourced item will be removed? Is {{fact}} unacceptable? Oculi (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • In any case only 2 (numbers 3 and 14) of the 90 are labelled 'dead link' so what is the source of your 18%? Moreover 3 is one of 3 cites for the same fact, and 14 is a source for 'Audile Productions' which is incidental rather than crucial in the article. So I make it around 0%. Oculi (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • See this which shows that sources 3, 14, 20, 21, 31, 36, 41, 48, 51, 54, 58, 60, 63, 65, 69, 89 are all dead. This adds up to 16, and 16 / 90 x 100 = 18 therefore 18% of the article fails WP:V. Till 00:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Article does not fail stability: "It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process." The only issue with the article is dead links, which I will fix later. Statυs (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment. And the Linkvio as well? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And, what? If you're gonna talk to somebody, actually say something productive. Statυs (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a very valid comment and very important to be noted. There are linkvio items used - if I remove them (as I and every other editor is supposed to do) I will be in the wrong according those who support keeping the article. Therefore I feel it is correct for me to point out that some of the links should be removed according to WP policy. It is the least that any WP editor can expect. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand in which way do you cite LINKVIO. Can you please elaborate which sites that are used as sources are violating the copyright of such works? — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I am presently going through the list. Will post on talkpage when I have finished. But any site that links to a recording or copies substantially the lyrics will be copyvio and should be removed. That is an imperative and we should all be familiar with the policy. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I was afraid that you were talking about BMI or ASCAP. I'd appreciate of you list the sources which are in violation so that they can be replaced. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, however a listing at at ASCAP/BMI/US Copyright Office etc does not confirm the existence of a recording, whether released or otherwise. I have often used them as a source to find writers i.e. match title and artist and so the songwriters will be correct, but very unreliable to prove the existence of a recording because that's not what a PRO is for. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and to state that this article contains material about recordings (by linking to these songwriting websites) is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Till 00:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Richhoncho's point is valid, but yours, Till, isn't. Links to ASCAP/BMI/etc are completely acceptable and not a violation of any guideline or policy. The main issue could be about the scope of the list. As far as I know, this list comprises all songs that were written for Britney Spears, whether she recorded them or not. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

But Hahc21 you have now opened a completely new can of worms. If the songs have not been been proven to have been recorded then can they be "unreleased?" FWIW, I am in favour of a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears or even a List of songs written by Britney Spears it's this goddam awful word "unreleased" which I can't abide. --Richhoncho (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't know :S I am no fan of Britney Spears and have no personal feelings about this article... So I am not in favour or in favour of any list about her ;) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahc, you either: a) didn't read what I wrote, or b) misunderstood what I wrote. To say that these unreleased songs (that link to the songwriting websites) were recorded by Britney Spears is a violation of WP:SYNTH. There is no proof that these songs were in fact recorded. Till 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, then I misunderstood what you wrote and I agree with you. I think that this list contains songs that were written by/for her (but maybe that's just my mind going beyond what's actually written). If we say that all of them were recorded, we would be in violation of SYNTH as you say, which is correct. Also, and for obvious reasons, we can't find a source stating those songs were recorded [unless we go to YouTube, but that's not reliable]. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

My god Richhoncho, get out of AfD zone because this isn't what this is... Statυs (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to save this as a Featured Article, then you need to ensure that WP policies and guidelines are met. That has nothing to do with AfD, and everything to do with the proposed delisting. Your best course of action is to deal with the problems in the list, rather than being offensive to those that disagree with you at present. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. This is a featured list, not a featured article. Thus, criteria changes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite, typo late in the evening. But the principles of verifiability, references, no original research, no synthesis etc still apply - even if we disagree where the actual lines in the sand appear. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry but AFD and DRV are not considered inside the stability criteria. Also, new references can be found. I am afraid that this FLRC was opened with the intentions of removing the broze start that prevented the article from being deleted. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Still fails WP:V and notability is still in question. Till 00:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't in my opinion. For an article to fail WP:V, it must have no sources, online or offline, available anywhere. If reliable sources exist, and I am pretty sure they are, then WP:V is met. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Please show me where it states that "for an article to fail WP:V, it must have no sources, online or offline, available anywhere". The sources in question are dead, therefore inaccessible, therefore readers cannot verify that the material is supported by such sources, therefore it fails WP:Verifiability. Till 00:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The issue is not that the sources are dead. The issue is how to replace them. If you can replace those dead links with other ones, then it still meets WP:V. That policy is not restricted to the sources on the articles, but to all possible sources in the world. If an article has no sources, or its sources are dead, but you can find a replacement, then it meets WP:V. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Where are these sources you speak of? I tried retrieving archives of the links with no success. You are asserting that there are replacement links. Then provide them. Otherwise, the content that cites dead links fails WP:V. Till 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
            • I am not willing to provide them, as I have no personal interests in this list, but I have reached other users who do, and are willing to. I hope they do, eventually. Otherwise, we'd have to assume good faith and remove all unverifiable claims... — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Delist - no evidence has been provided that the unreleased songs collectively are a notable topic. I am unable to find any sources which treat this topic in depth, and thus must conclude that while some of the individual songs are notable, the fact that they were originally to be released by Britney Spears is not a significant enough relationship to have a list on this topic. Claritas § 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  Note: The above user was canvassed to this discussion. Statυs (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  That's not canvassing, he expressed a concern that the list had FL status so I notified him of a FLRC page being created. What's "canvassing" is you begging me to "support" your Bruno Mars discography FLC. Till 03:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  But you don't notify people who supported the list's FL status? You single out one person who had a concern with it. That's what canvassing is. You never learn, do you? Statυs (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? I'm talking about his concern brought up at WP:DRV. No one else mentioned the list's FL status in the DRV discussion, whereas this user was the only one who did so. Hence why I notified them. Till 03:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep assuming that within two-to-three weeks the dead links can be resolved. Any argument over notability seems to be pointless, especially reading the current DRV. Time to focus on improving the current list, and spend less time fighting with each other about whether this should exist in the first place. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note, a few MOS issues like SHOUTING in the ref titles.... but if someone is interested, this FLRC is ready to be closed as no consensus to delist in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You have got to be joking. The dead links are still there...20% of this article fails WP:V. It certainly doesn't meet the core requirements for WP:FL. If anything, it should be delisted as consensus hasn't been established. Per WP:FLRC, "A nomination will be removed from the list, archived and added to Former featured lists if consensus to keep has not been reached". We don't close a FLRC as "no consensus to delist" when issues are still unaddressed, that's ridiculous. Till 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Not joking no. We respect consensus so if the consensus is that a list isn't sufficiently poor enough to be delisted, it shouldn't be delisted. However, I do note your major concern that all the ASCAP links are dead, I would hope that's just a case of fixing them in a common fashion. Someone who's interested should do that as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't feel comfortable closing the FLRC as a keep while there are still dead links in the article. If we don't resolve tagged issues at a review, there's not much point in having a review at all. To me, the best solution is to allow a little more time for the links to be repaired or replaced. There's no rush here, and since the links are the main stumbling block at this point we may as well give interested editors a fair chance to find replacements or archives, if some progress is being made. If nothing happens, I hope some editors will reconsider their positions because I don't want to be the one to close an article with legitimate tagged issues as a keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, looks like trouble then. The ASCAP website appears to have made it impossible to directly link to search results so unless someone can replace all those dead links, we won't have a solution here. No archives available either. I guess Giants/NapHit will have to make a call on the consensus here and close it accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
            • The ASCAP/BMI entries do not confirm the existence of an "unreleased song" in any event, pure WP:SYNTH. See above. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
              • Ok, well I don't know much about that. Can you show me where a song listed by ASCAP does not confirm that it was an unreleased song? The one I looked up (Can Caper) named Britney as the "performer" along with the other information here. Why would ASCAP list an artist as a "performer" if the song hadn't been recorded? Just a question.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
                • ASCAP/BMI are Performing Rights Organisations (PROs) who are there to collect performance royalties for the songwriters. The performer is an irrelevance to a PRO, only that a particular song is sung and where. As there is no interest by the PRO who performed a song, it cannot be taken at face value that there is "a recording by BS (or anybody else for that matter), or, if there is a recording the term "unreleased" cannot be appended to the recording - that is pure assumption - there may only be a "songwriter demo" and that demo might be sung by an unknown demo singer. Finally, the way ASCAP/BMI work, any songwriter who wants to register with them can do by signing the paper and paying the money - again no proof of existence of a recording. Hence my reference to WP:SYNTH. And... there's still WP:LINKVIO which I think is an even more serious problem. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, but can you demonstrate that ASCAP listings don't mean recordings/performances don't exist, particularly as the listing suggest the work has been "performed" since Britney is listed as a "performer"? I'm not saying I don't believe you but I'd like to external evidence that corroborates what you're saying. Right now all I'm seeing is your text. On the second issue, which particular links (can you enumerate them?) are linkvios? It could be quite easy to substitute them. If not, then I'm certainly in agreement that they should not stand. Thanks for all your help in this FLRC by the way, not sure anyone's got round to saying that! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove a negative, but for an example of an incorrect listing, if you search "Bob Dylan" under performer at ASCAP, there is an entry for Endless Highway, because it was performed by The Band on the joint album Before the Flood. As far as I am aware there is no Dylan performance, recorded or live.

With regard to registering a song, you will will see what is required at ASCAP - you will note that no proof of information is required.

I did start running through the references and here are my notes to where I got to:

1. US Copyright office. Does not confer the title “unreleased song” on any piece of work. Only that there is material that Spears or her advisers thinks might have a copyright. (it might be a poem or a lyric, therefore not an “unreleased song.”
2. Ditto. BMI/ASCAP. Only confirms that there is a song which the Britney Spears people think that performance royalties might be due. Again does not confer the concept of “unreleased recording” but of "performance." It should be noted that these two organizations collect songwriter royalties for the performance of the song - NOT the recording of the song (important distinction).
3. MTV Buzzworthy. MTV Networks. This site has links through to YouTube which has the 3 unreleased songs available. If the song has not been released by Spears/Record company then it is not legal, it is WP:LINKVIO.
4. The Sun. Asks the question, “Is Britney singing?” This does not make this an “unreleased recording.” It makes it a “possible” unreleased recording. Again there a soundfile which, if uploaded without permission (irrespective of who copyright owner is) is LINKVIO.
5. MuuMuse.com has inbedded links to SoundCloud - although the file is no longer available. There is also 10 lines of lyrics for “Everyday” which could/is interpreted over and above fair use.
6. Vulture/New York Magazine. Again inbedded links to mp3 files – although no longer available.
7. Hip Online. Confirms that BS and the Neptunes worked on an unreleased unnamed ballad, No mention of song title.
8. USA Today. OK.
9. Billboard. Another “leaked track with embedded link to unauthorised YouTube.
10. Animation World Network refers to an advert called “Can Caper” NOT a song however...

Thanks for your appreciation of my stance on this matter, which is quite clear, I hope, lists of unreleased are not notable, but subject to the usual WP constraints could be merged into Lists of songs recorded by...

Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rich, okay, well it's clear this isn't a bona fide easy keep, and there appear to be more issues than just the dead links. Perhaps I should shut up in future and comment on things I know something about! In line with Rich's concerns (and those earlier issues from Giants2008), I'll move to delist this article as it stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.