Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games/archive1

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

7 articles

2006

I am nominating this topic for removal because it has failed to meet a retention period for 2009 ACC Championship Game in regards to the criteria for 1.d and 3.c (the topic retention period was until 22 May 2009 so the topic has had an extra three months). The topic appears to "cherry-pick" since the 2009 article is not included and the 2009 article has also not been peer reviewed. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I appreciate the intent seen here, you are following the retention period objectively laid out at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention. But I also wonder, should the 2009 ACC Championship Game article even exist yet? The match isn't for another 3 1/2 months, there's no information on it beyond where it will be held. For now, it seems like all there should be is a redirect to the ACC Championship Game article. I expect that more information on the game will start to appear in the next couple of months, at which point the article will deserve to exist, and then the topic will get a fresh 3 months for the article to be PRed. But for now, I say we just merge the article - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rst20xx. College football season hasn't even started yet. The 2009 article was created prematurely. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then they were all created prematurely, see this: Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season especially 2010 BCS National Championship Game, 2009 MAC Championship Game and 2009 SEC Championship Game. It seems to be standard practice to create these articles almost immediately after the previous game is completed. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where that retention period in May came from ... it should be three months from Dec. 5, which is the 2009 game. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From creation of the article, you have three months to get it peer reviewed and added to the topic through a supplemental nomination since the game has not been played yet. Once the game is played the three months to get to GA/FA period kicks in. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gotcha. What are you looking for at this point in the game? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My stake is primarily just to see that the currently featured topics adhere to the criteria and continue to present the best works of our project. While I am sympathetic because the article for the 2009 game was apparently created without your knowledge and this whole retention period was definitely a surprise to you, the topic at present does have an obvious gap (even if the game hasn't been played yet). I really do not care what happens in the end (demote, merge the article, etc.). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, then would you mind doing a peer review of the 2009 article? Since it's so short and no more information is available to expand it, it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not one to rubber-stamp an article review, especially since the content is not where I specialize here and regularly review (Military history). I'll bet someone would provide a review if you listed the article for one. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Erm I put the retention period up, just following the formal procedure. And JKBrookes85, you should have known, because I told you at the time. But when it came to this nomination for topic removal, it didn't appear any more information was out there, so hence I said merge. But now the article has been expanded so it looks like maybe it could merit existence at this stage - certainly a peer review wouldn't be so pointless - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually to clarify I didn't notify on the date of creation (Feb 22) because I didn't realise it was created at first, but did notify when I realised on April 1. But 3 months after April 1 is July 1 so JKBrooks85 still had 3 months (4 1/2, actually) - rst20xx (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, comrades! I've reviewed the article with comments (which JKB has swiftly addressed) at Talk:2009 ACC Championship Game. Not sure if this was exactly what you all were looking for. If not, let me know how I can help. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the peer review to the box above and to the main topic box, since it's being questioned. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this nom was started, the article has been expanded, and so it looks like maybe it could merit existence at this stage - certainly a peer review wouldn't be so pointless. The peer review needs to be a complete run at WP:PR so all comers can have a chance to look over it if they want to - maybe you should nominate it there, and when that closes in about 2 weeks, we can add the article to the topic and close this as keep? (Though Cryptic C62's review is very good!) rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...can we get that PR? rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to keep - the topic is now up to standard. And needless to say, from 2009-12-05, this topic will have 3 months to meet criterion 3.a. with article 2009 ACC Championship Game - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]