Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:50, 5 June 2005

• ]

Procedure

If you feel an article on Misplaced Pages:Featured articles should no longer be featured, then this is the place where an article is nominated for demotion. Before nominating a page for removal, the following steps have to be carried out.

1. Only pages that do not adhere to the Featured article criteria may be listed.
2. Objections raised should be actionable, else it may be ignored.
3. On the talk page of the article, state the reasons why you think it should be removed.
4. A warning on the article's talk page that if comments are not satisfactorily entertained, the page may be put up for removal in a week's time (the minimum period).
5. If your objections are not satisfied in a week's time, you may list you unresolved objections here. Also add the {{farc}} template (Template:Farc) to the top of the article's talk/discussion page.

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. All discussions will be logged at Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/archive.

Articles nominated for removal

Add new nominations on top, one sub-section per article.

Aryan invasion theory

Uh-oh, when a supposedly FA article has cleanup template we have a problem. Nominated a year ago, passed with a single support. No references, external links in body, no picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. The content itself seems ok (albeit somewhat essay-like), but there are severe structural problems. Phils 09:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assassination

What the...? It's a Featured article? When I stumbled on this I thought it wasn't a proper Misplaced Pages article at all, I was thinking VfD. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, Assassination is an essay. Bishonen | talk 09:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Reads like an essay. No references. Glad to have learnt though that "in nations like India killings by knife or sword remain quite popular, as they do in sub-Saharan Africa (for example, with the machete)". — mark ✎ 12:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Mmm, I'm not seeing what's so bad about this article. No vote. Everyking 12:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Too much essay, no references. - Taxman 15:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. No references, not comprehensive (I'd like to see a 'famous assasinations' section, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency

Nominated in September'04 for 'brilliant prose' and 'relevance to current events'. Brilliant prose is not enough, besides, I don't think it is brilliant anymore (text has way to many subsections and some short paras and lists, on talk 'to do list' sais 'General cleanup of text'), nor relevant ('to do list' sais 'Update article with newer info'), besides, many articles has been voted out at FAC for being current. Further, lead is too short (one para only), references are mixed with external links in one section and there are 24 external links in main article. This would never pass a FAC today, and I am amazed it even made it last year.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the above points, the article is also pretty unstable. --nixie 13:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not perfect, but good enough to retain, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 13:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with all points stated above say1988 01:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. --mav 11:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rethink all the subheadings, but otherwise this is a first-rate source for info on the insurgency. Harro5 21:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the qualifier (and this is gonna sound strange considering I have just voted "Keep" to it being in the FAC list) that it does not become a Featured Article Nominee. It is too changeable, controversial and maybe even long to be a Featured Article. It is, howeverm excellent. As stated before, an arch example of Misplaced Pages, through the collaboration of many, achieving roughly a consensus on a rapidly-changing but very important modern event. --Batmanand 21:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Some keep votes likely result from lack of knowledge of the current WP:FAC standard level. The references do not include retrieval dates and the lead is innapropriate. This alone would lead this article to be recused. Phils 09:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Computer security

I think this article falls quite a way short of current Featured quality. There's lots of problems obviously evident and not all can be easily fixed — I can give examples if you like, but I think it's clear, and I'm feeling lazy ;-)

• Remove. — Matt Crypto 15:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Yikes, I don't see how this could be fixed without a ground up rewrite. - Taxman 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. needs updating and fixing. Rhobite 00:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Looks like one of those brilliant prose articles... not so brilliant anymore... -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Some sections written in second person, some in third person, some sections are clearly outdated. (e.g., no reference to DVD/R media as backups). 24.2.207.183 13:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright

This article does not warrant featured status due to the relatively poor quality of much of the content, and the over representation of critique at the expense of content addressing fundamental aspects of copyright. The simplest way to illustrate the weakness of the article is to invite comparison with the patent and trademark articles. The article in its current form simply does not compete at featured article level. 203.198.237.30 12:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Even if others disagree, I'll continue to believe references are important enough. It's also been long enough. - Taxman 17:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "Further Reading" section has references, it appears. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What would lead you to believe that that is true? "Further reading" could just as well mean that those are a list of works made available for the interested reader, but never even seen by the page authors. Further, I made a request over a month ago to clarify that very problem, and there was no response. So instead it would appear they are not valid references. - Taxman 13:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. The "as of 1911" reference still hasn't been cleaned up by fact-checking to see whether or not the related information is still true. -- Beland 01:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Neutrality 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Deeply, deeply,flawed; more a hit-and-miss set of discussions relating to the subject than a coherent exploration of it. Monicasdude 01:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured content