Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates

[[:|WP:FARC]]

If you feel an article on Wikipedia:Featured articles should no longer be featured, then this is the place where an article is nominated for demotion. Only pages that do not adhere to the featured article criteria may be listed. Objections raised must be actionable.

Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.

Once an article has been listed here for two weeks, it will be removed from the featured articles list if the consensus is to remove, and added to the list of Former Featured Articles. All discussions will be logged at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive.

Nomination procedure

Place {{farc}} on the talk page of the nominated article.
From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
(If you are resubmitting an article) Use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Television/archive1
Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage.
Below it, write your reason for nominating the article. Note which of the featured article criteria the article fails to meet.
Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of the page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated article.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Articles nominated for removal

Add new nominations on top.'

Sino-Soviet split

Article is no longer a featured article

No references (request outstanding since April this year. Lead is inadequate (too small). While this has the potential to be FA again (or rescued), in the present form it is not up to our standards. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be removed unless this problem is fixed. I've alerted Adam Carr, who appears to have been one of the contributors. Tony 09:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unless it's saved. Feel free to alert me if that's the case. - 131.211.51.34 11:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was me in case you were wondering. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. - Taxman ^Talk 11:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nomination. Ganymead 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—Main contributor says that he probably won't find time to rectify the problems. (See my discussion page.) Tony 12:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for now. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passed FAC during the period when References were not required. It should remain (with a request for references template on it). ALKIVAR™ 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Adam a message on his talk page asking for inline citations. Don't act on this until he's had a chnace to response, please. →Raul654 03:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Tony had already informed User:Adam Carr of the Farc on the 19th, this listing shall be here for an extra seven days, until November 9th instead of November 2nd (unless Adam votes remove, himself). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

Iraqi insurgency

Article is no longer a featured article

Copied from its talk page: This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC). Rather than summarily removing it let's discuss its merits and then decide. It was also nominated here three months ago: old nomination. Worldtraveller 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original FAC is here. JDR 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Contains multiple images without any license and those that claim fair use have no rationale, and some aren't needed to illustrate the article. Like the blurry one of a person loading a missile. - 131.211.51.34 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) there is no process for summary removal, so well done for bringing it here, and 2) and I now change my vote to remove. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. While the article does have a lot of interesting info and decent references, it lacks the overall cohesiveness of a well-put-together article and instead reads as a list of items related to the Iraq insurgency. There are also a number of inaccuracies, such as this statement in the lead: "Much of the insurgents' violence is directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government." In the last few months, the insurgency has focused on causing civilian casualties. I also don't see any info on the fighting that has occured between the different insurgent groups.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Starts quite well, then the rot sets in. Appallingly written towards the end. Lacks cohesiveness. Someone had better repair it quick smart. Tony 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove-Normally I'd suggest just reverting to the revision for which it was made featured, but this is an topic that demands a continually updated and improved article. Those updates and improvements simply haven't been made. However, remember we're not voting to delete; I can see this possibly earning featured again in the future. Superm401 | Talk 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the various positons on it's becoming a FAC. The article covers the necessary view that "the resistance" as it isn't a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. It has "heaps of info" (aka., list of items related to the Iraq insurgency) and "Covers pretty much everything" .... and, as to being in a "state of flux", something that goes along with being a "current event" . Sincerely, JDR 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. This article is an embarrassment and has been for some time. There is some good stuff in here no doubt, and the article does try to deal with the complexity of the situation, but it has been the victim of so many edit wars and POV-related edits that it will take a while to separate the signal from the noise here. It also probably will not be improved any time soon until people both pro- and anti-war stop trying to use this article as their political soapbox. Obviously there are important political issues here, but the language should be encyclopedic, not politically charged, and debates over the political meaning of terms (such as "insurgency" and "resistance") should not be elided or wished away.--csloat 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Many thanks to Worldtraveller for doing what I did not. I removed the article summarily because I assessed that there would be overwhelming support for this action in the interests of Wikipedia (WP:IAR) but this turned out to be wrong so when the article was restored I did not pursue the matter further. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove regarding JDR's comment, the fact that something being in a state of flux goes along with being a current event is why we don't normally nom current events to be FAs. Re:stability criteria. Borisblue 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I support Tony's rather rash decision to remove it even it may appear somewhat high-handed. He is absolutely right that this is a no-brainer since it's about a current event that might take years to stabilize, something which should've been recognized in the original FAC. Demanding a proper vote when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't live up to the FA criteria strikes me as overly bureaucratic. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove From reading the FAC archive, the article was a good one at the time. But lately it seems to have been taken over by a group of pro-Bush POV pushers, whose standards of writing are not the highest. JMaxwell 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]