Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates

Removing Good and Featured Topics in Wikipedia

If you feel a topic on Wikipedia:Featured topics or a topic on Wikipedia:Good topics should no longer be there, then this is the place to nominate it for demotion. Only topics that do not adhere to the good or featured topic criteria should be listed. Objections raised must be actionable.

Do not nominate topics that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates), or topics that have recently survived a removal attempt—such nominations are likely to be removed summarily.

Once a topic has been nominated on this page for ten days, the discussion will be assessed for consensus by one of the FGTC coordinators, who will close the discussion. If there is consensus to remove, it will be removed from the list of featured topic, and added to the list of former featured topics. All discussions will be logged at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/archive. The removal instructions are located here.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Good content:

Featured and good topic tools:

Nomination procedure

Place {{FTRCmain|ExampleTopicName|X}} or {{GTRCmain|ExampleTopicName|X}} (as appropriate) on the talk page of the main article of the topic, where X is the desired archive number.
From there, click on the "add a comment" link.
Add ===ExampleTopicName=== and the topic's box copied from Wikipedia:Featured topics/ExampleTopicName.
Below it, write your reason for nominating the topic. Note which of the featured topic criteria that the topic fails to meet.
Place {{Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/ExampleTopicName/archiveX}} (again, where X is the desired archive number) 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.

Supporting and objecting

Please read all the articles of the nominated topic fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a nomination to remove, write '''Delist''' followed by your reasons.
If you oppose of a nomination to remove, write '''Keep''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a justification why the topic does not violate the listed criteria.
If you want to delay the nomination while another nomination takes place, such as adding new items to the topic or nominating member articles for Good Article status, write '''HOLD''' with a link to the relevant nomination and this nomination will not be closed until after the other one.
To withdraw a support or objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

Consensus must be reached for a topic to be removed from featured status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. As a general guide, new topics will remain on here for at least 10 days to allow for comment, and must have at least 4 remove votes (although consensus and lack of major objections are also important) for removal.

Topics nominated for removal

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

4 articles

1998 FA Charity Shield

1999 FA Cup final

1999 UEFA Champions League final

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season was demoted from Good article status on June 3. Retention period expired September 3. The article was nominated at GAN on August 11, but nobody has started the review in the 3 months since. JHD0919 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait It the article is nominated than that's good enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the result of the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - the article was nominated within the retention period, it's not the fault of the nominator that the GAN queue is massively backed up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show

Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show

4 articles

"Take a Hint"

"Make It in America"

"I Think You're Swell"

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. Don't You (Forget About Me) is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "Don't You (Forget About Me)" is currently a C-class article, but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:You should have notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it here: Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show, the right place to discuss the topic. If the supporters showed an empathic support, it is up to them, but we have had several albums that have not been promoted to GT or being demoted from GT due to them lack of all blue-link related articles. In fact, in the nomination, only one person mentioned it: "Support While the cover song could be added, better just recognize what's done already", deliberately going against the purpose of good topics. Victorious shouldn't be an exception for the rules set. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it made sense only putting the songs made for the show. Besides, the one other blue link on the track list that you highlighted doesn't even mention Victorious in the article. igordebraga ≠ 19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song is a cover of the Simple Minds original, it doesn't have its own article. The song's article doesn't have anything remotely related to the topic, the Victorious show/album isn't even mentioned in the article. Thus it's inclusion in the topic would be out of place. I reference the Taylor's version topics, which despite the album having covers of her originally published songs, are not included in the topic as they don't have their own articles. There's a similar case with the Chemical Romance album topic, it doesn't include a cover of the brief Romance guitar piece for the same reasons. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying too many things at the same time. First, cover versions don't requiere their own articles, so I don't get the point. Not every cover becomes as relevant as the original song to have an independent article. But in itself, it is not a reason not to mention the versión in the original song. The article not discussing the song is not a reason not to discuss the song? I found sources discussing it (this also applies to Vol. 1 since you pointing that discussion here instead of discussing it there individually), so I don't see why the article cannot discuss it. The Taylor's Versions are irrelevant here. The TV albums are reworks of the original album. Taylor Swift is covering her own albums, so it is a new product. Thus, those re-releases are new topics that, at the time, didn't mean to be part of the original idea. You would have a point with Romance if Islands (The xx song) and Love Don't Live Here Anymore weren't part of other topics. What seams to be happening is that it exists a generalized idea that since "X" is a cover version that wasn't as important as the original version, and "X" is one of many other versions recorded by others, then nominators don't want to included those songs accordingly on the topic, despite (in the case of albums) they were meant to be part of the final product and were most likely promoted by the artist. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islands has a section about Shakira's cover, ditto Love Don't Live Here Anymore for Madonna's. As one enters the song article from the album topic, it's clear why it's there. The Simple Minds one doesn't even mention Victorious. It's on a whole different level of importance/relevance, and thus it doesn't seem essential. igordebraga ≠ 14:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version has its own section too. I'm sorry but you can't have both. You can't go to Vol. 1 and say that you oppose the delist there because of the same reasons at Vol. 2 and contradict yourself here saying that there is no subsection here, therefore it also has to be kept. Lacking it's subsection is not a reason to not include it. It simply means no one has worked on it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show

Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show

11 articles

"Make It Shine"

"Freak the Freak Out"

"Best Friend's Brother"

"Beggin' on Your Knees"

"All I Want Is Everything"

"You're the Reason"

"Give It Up"

"Song 2 You"

"Finally Falling"

"Leave It All to Shine"

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. I Want You Back is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "I Want You Back" is currently a start-class article (C-ish in my opinion), but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have appreciated it if you had notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified it at the topic's page, the venue where such discussions take place. Reviewing the nomination, no one mentioned the cover, indicating it was completely overshadowed, not discussed. You are also confusing WP:NOTABILITY with WP:NOTEWORTHYness, since I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version does exist and shows how notable/noteworthy the cover was. Just to cite an example of many delisted/not promoted album good topics, refer to Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Celebration (Madonna album)/archive1. Celebration (Madonna album) has 4 specific topics relating to it: the album, two new songs and a video album. But the album is comprised of 32 other songs that were not created for the album. If you'd like an example of a topic including a cover version, Wikipedia:Good topics/Sale el Sol shows it with Islands. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show case. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: You are contradicting here what you say there. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While I sympathize heavily with Shoot for the Stars here, I don't really like the precedent being of "we don't need to GA covers", given how out-of-control that can become. Say if, one day, She's So Unusual gets put up for GT. Would a nominator be able to say that the articles for "Money Changes Everything" and "When You Were Mine" don't need to be GAs, simply because they are covers? Or that a GT for Use Your Illusion II wouldn't need "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" just because it was originally written by Bob Dylan? Of course not. While the Victorious cover of "I Want You Back" may not be as well-known as the original, it's clearly known enough that it has its own subsection in the article for that song, and the Victorious version has even charted in the US.

Now, I'm not entirely sure how I would approach a case like "Don't You (Forget About Me)", where the song in question doesn't have a dedicated subsection in the article. Maybe there really isn't anything to write about the Victorious cover of that song, and thus it can slip by like any other song from an album which doesn't have a dedicated page. In this case, however, I find myself agreeing with Tbhotch's assessment that this particular topic is incomplete as it stands. Leafy46 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to be agreed upon that "I Want You Back" needs to be GA, I am willing to make it. I will just need more time as I have never worked on a music article from the 1960s, meaning there are hundreds, if not thousands, of books and newspapers talking about the track, especially for a popular song like "I Want You Back". Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a potential compromise option, which wouldn't require you to work through this behemoth of an article. WP:GT? says that items that are "ineligible for [...] good article status" can still be included so long as they pass an "individual quality audit". While this option is intended for unstable articles, I could see myself supporting this topic as complete so long as the Victorious section of the "I Want You Back" article has passed this quality assurance for completeness. I'll note that, if the section is truly large enough, it may warrant spinning off the cover version into its own separate article. This would resolve the issue altogether, but I'm not sure if there is enough to write about this cover version in particular. In any case, I will still lay down this "peer-reviewed section" suggestion as a path forward, even though I imagine it's probably not going to be too popular. Leafy46 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion quite yet as I've been pondering on it for a while, but I want to bring this up. The Victorious cover of "I Want You Back is", in the grand scheme of that song, relatively trivial. I was honestly shocked it even got a section. Retrospectives of the song likely don't mention Victorious any more than the multiple other covers of the song. We're looking at a song famous as Michael Jackson's introduction to the world and being the signature song of the Jackson 5. Hell, it made the Rolling Stone 500 and is a Level-5 vital article for those reasons. Leafy's argument above about how, if we assume covers are not needed for topics, then Use Your Illusion II would seemingly not need "Heaven's Door". To require or not to require a cover in a good topic should, IMO, be dependent on arguments similar to WP:DUEWEIGHT. "Heaven's Door" is a case where the Guns & Roses cover is arguably as famous as the original by Bob Dylan, or very comparable. The commercial performance between the origin by Dylan and the cover is very comparable and even leans more towards the latter. That is a case where I'd ask the topic to include "Heaven's Door". But here? The original "I Want You Back" is FAR more noteworthy as a Jackson 5 song. The Victorious cover is a footnote. Honestly the only reason I think it got a section in the article for the song anyways is because it charted.

Hell, I throw in my own experience here: I got a good topic promoted a while back for My Chemical Romance's first album. That album opens with a prelude of the "Romance" guitar piece. I made an argument there as to why I do not think that "Romance" would be required for the topic: the usage of "Romance" in Bullets is trivial to both an overview of the album and any overview about "Romance" itself. It is merely used to set the tone as effectively a glorified intro/lead-up to the actual first song, and covering the Bullets rendition in the article for "Romance" would at best be worth a sentence. And if that's all that it would amount to in the end, then it might as well not even be considered. Basically everyone agreed and the topic was promoted without "Romance". To summarize my thoughts, I don't find the idea of requiring a song be promoted to GA to make a topic for a specific album, when the album's cover of that song is relatively trivial to the history of that song, to be a very good one. But I can be swayed either way here if this question is sufficiently answered: at what point does a song cover reach the threshold of being expected for a GT? Because it certainly wasn't required for Bullets and I'd consider the importance of Victorious to "I Want You Back" as only a bit higher than the importance of Bullets to "Romance". λ NegativeMP1 02:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: That point about "Romance" was brought up in the accompanying Removal Candidacy for Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show; however, I feel like that comparing this song to "Romance" is understating the relative importances. I feel like a more comparable example, as shown by Tbhotch in the other candidacy, is how "Islands (The xx song)" is included in the good topic for Sale el Sol, despite the Shakira cover of the song being quite sparse and just barely charting. I admit that this cover is not as strongly necessary as "Heaven's Door" would be on a Use Your Illusion II topic, but I would still argue that sufficient coverage should exist about it on the page for "I Want You Back", as verified per a peer review or similar. Leafy46 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: I did not see the other topic removal candidacy until now, somehow. But honestly from what I'm reading there it sounds like the nominator of both this removal and that one is implying that "Romance" should be a part of the Bullets. Unless I'm seriously misinterpreting it. And to refer to the point regarding "Islands", I personally wouldn't ask for that song to be included as part of a topic for Sale el Sol should it have come down to that. But what's done is done. Still just my thoughts on a type of "due weight" argument for whether a cover should be in a topic or not. And this isn't a case where I feel it's necessary.

With that being said, your idea of a "quality check" being performed on the Victorious cover section in particular seems to be reasonable but I doubt it would align with GT standards much. λ NegativeMP1 15:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]