Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Sun Yat-sen

From the FARC criteria: Do not list articles that have recently been promoted — such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. Sun Yat-sen was promoted last month. [September 15 -JOG] As such, the listing here on FARC is too soon, and it is being speedy-delisted. Feel free to bring up your concerns on the article's talk page, or Be Bold in updating the article iteslf. Additionally, if you feel the article is not sufficiently updated, relist this FARC in a couple of months. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These complaints were brought up during the candidate period. There was no consensus to promote in the first place. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say how soon is soon. Two months is long enough and no one's bothered to improve it. --Ji ang 11:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though you may feel there was no consensus, User:Raul654, the Featured Article Director in charge of promotion, apparently felt there was. There is no strict guidline for "recently", but past speedily-delisted Farc attempts lean towards last month being too soon. Give it some time, or try to improve the article yourself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

when I brought the question up immediately on Raul's talk page, he ignored me. he never bothered explaining his decision. one of the nominators soon posted on my talk page that he too was suprised this article was promoted so fast. Raul didn't answer me and I didn't bother asking him again.

do you have citations of past precendents on delisting from farc? I could not find any. --Ji ang 11:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to leave a note with Raul, drawing his attention to this issue. We can also bring it up on the FARC main talk to try to derive a concensus on whether or not this is too soon. (I'm digging around for past examples now.) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a sensible decision, with the vast majority of people supporting the nomination. Further, Raul654 himself opposed the nomination but felt that there was sufficient support to promote it. This FARC nomination is a little soon, but one and a half months is about the cusp - I'd say two months would be acceptable. violet/riga (t) 11:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a 90-day guy myself, but I wouldn't object if this was brought up again early December - that's not to say, though, that others wouldn't feel it was too early. As for a previosly speedy-de-listed Farc, see here, though the timeframe was a bit tighter. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you note the "support" pattern, you will see a bunch of bandwagon unexplained votes (due to campaigning on the part of the nominators). My objections came rather late into the nomination and well after these "votes" had already been cast. Discussion was still ongoing when this was promoted. I sincerely doubt, given the state of this article, that any of the non-web sources at Sun_Yat-sen#References were used at all for this article, but that is an issue for another page... --Ji ang 12:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the substance of your objection (I feel the objection itself and the objection to the promotion have merit), but the timing of it. I would have no problem with IARing this if there was more support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked through the nomination I would go so far as to say that such a detailed FARC should be looked at despite the timing. violet/riga (t) 12:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]