Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2017 log

Kept

Marvel Cinematic Universe films

While there is currently a retention period until this Friday for Spider-Man: Homecoming to reach good article status (which it did), the article Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is still not a good article six months after its theatrical release and nearly three months since its home media release. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But it has been nominated, which is what was agreed, since no one can control when the nomination gets picked up for review. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sock: Adam is correct. Films have to be nominated for GA by a month after their home media release date, not be reviewed and made a GA by that date. Again as Adam said, we have no ability to control how or when the articles will be reviewed, only that they are nominated. We have been on top of maintaining this topic, ensuring we do not miss our nomination deadlines. I request this be speedily closed, as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 and Favre1fan93: I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I missed key information here. Taking responsibility for a definite blunder on this one, not sure why I didn't consult with you two first since there's almost always an explanation for the stuff that confuses me with MCU films, and with the GA/GT status of those films. I went out of my usual element and missed key details, so I apologize for that. Requesting that this be closed as well, as the nomination was made erroneously. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sock: It's all good. No worries. @GamerPro64: is it okay for me to close this discussion, or can you do it? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can close this. This nomination has been Withdrawn. GamerPro64 17:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Zone

In the Zone

9 articles

"Me Against the Music"

"Breathe on Me"

"Toxic"

"Everytime"

"Outrageous"

"(I've Just Begun) Having My Fun"

The Onyx Hotel Tour

Britney Spears: In the Zone

No longer meets GT criteria: one article in the scope "Touch of My Hand" is not a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist the C-class article has been around forever, was never GA as far as I can tell, and it looks like the topic should never have been promoted in the first place. I see per Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/In the Zone/archive1 that this problem was "solved" previously by redirecting the article. That's not what I would consider a good solution. Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Thank you for your comment! That makes sense as I share the same concern when looking through the previous Featured topic removal candidate for this. "Touch of My Hand" appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article so it will need to be revised and expanded and passed as a GA before this topic can be completed (I do not believe that another redirect to "solve" the problem would the appropriate course of action). Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I made a few date changes and then nominated it for GA. The article seems to be fairly well written and broad in its coverage. Let's see what happens. Carbrera (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sounds good to me. We will see what happens. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If no one else gets to it soon, I will see if I can review the GA nom next week. Obviously repairing is preferred to delisting. Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input. I agree that repairing is much preferred over delisting. If no one gets to the GAN, then it is best that you cover it if possible as you are a much better reviewer than I am. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if it should have its stand alone article? See that according to the guidelines of notability the song in question never entered any charts, never won a single award and was not "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" Being well written is not enough. Moreover, it also states that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", which is clearly the case, as I see it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I understand your points about this; all of the information from the "Reception" section seems to be taken directly from album reviews, which is not a good sign. The sources for the "Background" and "Composition" sections seem good and focused more directly on the song, though the actual prose needs to be tightened and revised. I would suggest exploring the following questions to @Carbrera: and anyone else interested in working and expanding this article:

Have her performances of the song received any special attention or reviews? I remember that her performance of the song on the Onyx Hotel Tour was quite controversial (for the time especially) so I would suggest looking there. Also see if there was any critical response to her performance of it during the Billboard Music Awards, Britney: Piece of Me, and The Circus Starring Britney Spears? Here are some sources you can use for her "live" performances: 1, 2, 3, and 4. This is most likely not enough to establish notability on its own, but it may be beneficial to expanding the article.
Has this song charted anywhere? I would double-check to see if the song has charted anywhere. Also, just to note, "Breathe on Me" did not chart anywhere and still has an article.
Does the song have any critical reviews outside of album reviews? I think that this is the most important part of establishing this as notable. It is also a little strange to look through the "Breathe on Me" article to see a majority of the reviews in the "Reception" section are either album reviews or lists.

If more information cannot be located about the song, it may end up being redirected again. Either way, I would suggest that it be revised and expanded as I do not believe it is quite up to GA-quality quite yet. @Jclemens: Do you have any opinions about this? I am honestly not sure about this issue either way, but I just wanted to offer my suggestions as I was the one to open this. I apologize for the long response. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Those two sections don't give any song notability. The same goes for the live performances, any of that could be added to the tour article if the performance was relevant. The first source you provided is more of a "TMZ" site than anything else. Yes once again it expands the article but doesn't give notability. Regarding the charts its not mandatory if it has enough reviews on its own (just about the song). I guess that other article should also be checked, once again if it doesn't have reviews only addressing the song also redirect. Despite that redirects can lead to the page being created later on with the same information. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I assumed as much, but I just wanted to try and help anyone that was attempting to fix it. If this song does fail by the standards of song notability, then I would also suggesting looking through "Breathe on Me" as it shares several of the same problems from this article. It may be best to redirect this song back to the parent article In the Zone as done in the previous time that this was brought to the featured topic removal candidate. Thank you for your response. Feel free to change the article back to the redirect if/when the time comes for that. Also, what would you suggest doing for the "Breathe on Me" article? Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: After seeing the article "Breathe on Me" the same should be done as they are similar in the problems shared. However I would like to wait for other people opinions in order to proceed to do what you just said. I don't feel comfortable doing it on my own. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your response and that makes sense to me. I look forward to hearing other people's response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Hello again! I just wanted to let you know that "Touch of My Hand" is currently being reviewed. The question of notability was not raised in the review to the best of my understanding. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I guess not, but I stand still with my opinion towards this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I just wanted to draw your attention to the GA review. I agree that the issue of the notability (as well as the notability for the "Breathe on Me" page) should be discussed much further. I did not mean for message to go either way on the article; I more so intended as an update on the progress of this. Even if it does pass as a GA, the discussion on its notability should still continue. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while I believe the article is well written, I am also doubting its notability. Carbrera (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan:@Carbrera:I think that it will probably be best to see if we can get more responses on this from other users. If you feel that I should post a message about this on other parts of Wikipedia (such as the talk pages of the related Wikiprojects), then feel free to let me know your ideas. Also, I know that @Jclemens: responded to this earlier and I would be curious to hear your feedback on this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course hopefully more users will hop on this discussion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure they will; this is still a relatively recent discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those involved in the first discussion on this and who are still active on here for some possible insight/input: @HĐ: @WikiRedactor:. Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging @FanofPopMusic: as this is the primary editor involved with the creation and expansion of the "Touch of My Hand" article from the redirect for their perspective. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: @Juhachi: If possible, could you possibly provide some input for this as comments have appeared to have stalled without a consensus? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not much to say here. At this time it all depends on whether Touch of My Hand passes its GAN or not. GamerPro64 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GamerPro64: Thank you for your response. The user who put "Touch of My Hand" up for review (Carbrera) opted to wait until a consensus was reached here about the article's notability (as seen in this post here) before completing the GA review. Also, the question of the article's notability, which has been raised in the above comments here, was not addressed in the GA review by the reviewer (@Cartoon network freak:). I was wondering if you could provide some input on how you think this process should proceed since the GA review has appeared to have been stalled until this reaches some sort of resolution? Due to the above reasons, I do not believe that waiting for the GAN is the proper course of action. I would also greatly appreciate feedback from Cartoon network freak as he is the reviewer of "Touch of My Hand". Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now its been taken to AfD. Don't think you're supposed to do that during the article's GAN. GamerPro64 19:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Thank you for your message. The GAN has been stalled for a while. Following the discussion on this page, Carbrera explicitly stated in the GAN that he did not want to proceed with the review until the matter of the notability had been cleared either way. The GAN doesn't cover the topic of notability, which has been under debate on this page, so that should be cleared first before proceeding with the GAN if the article is deemed notable enough to have its own page. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Just wanted to let you know that the GAN for the article has been closed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're just going to have to wait for the results of the AfD to see if it'll be redirected. GamerPro64 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: Thank you for your patience during this process. The AfD has been closed with a consensus to redirect. I am not sure how to close this as this is the first time that I have done something like this, and I would greatly appreciate if you could close this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With Touch of My Hand not being its own article anymore, I am closing this nomination as Keep. GamerPro64 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

X&Y

X&Y

5 articles

"Speed of Sound"

"Fix You"

"Talk"

"The Hardest Part"

No longer meets GT criteria: one article "White Shadows" is not a GA. It seems that people keep re-creating the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominator's comment. Topic can be re-nominated if "White Shadows" is brought up to a GA or it is redirected/deleted through an AfD again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as the article in question has been present and properly referenced (meets GNG, not an unambiguous merge candidate) since 2010. Again, no prejudice against re-nomination for GT if this issues is remedied. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted - GamerPro64 13:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy series

Main Final Fantasy series

16 articles

Final Fantasy

Final Fantasy II

Final Fantasy III

Final Fantasy IV

Final Fantasy V

Final Fantasy VI

Final Fantasy VII

Final Fantasy VIII ^(subtopic)

Final Fantasy IX

Final Fantasy X

Final Fantasy XI

Final Fantasy XII ^(subtopic)

Final Fantasy XIII ^(subtopic)

Final Fantasy XIV

Final Fantasy XV

I am nominating this topic due to Final Fantasy XV not being at least be at Good Article status after its retention period ended, thus failing to meet criterion 3.b of the Featured Topic criteria. GamerPro64 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominator's comment. The article for Final Fantasy XV could still use some work, specifically the expansion of the "Reception" section, and does not appear to be ready to be put up for GAN. When the article does pass as a good article, this could be made a topic again, but for now, it should be delisted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per GamerPro64's comment. When Final Fantasy XV is a GA or higher, it can be renominated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid titles

13 articles

Metroid

Metroid II: Return of Samus

Super Metroid

Metroid Fusion

Metroid: Zero Mission

Metroid: Other M

Metroid Prime

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Metroid Prime Pinball

Metroid Prime Hunters

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Metroid Prime: Trilogy

I am nominating this topic as it fails criterion 3.b due to Metroid Prime: Federation Force not being at least GA status after its grace period. GamerPro64 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demote for the reasons stated above. Since the grace period for Metroid Prime: Federation Force has passed, this topic unfortunately must be demoted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. Seems like the right thing to do. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]