Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Navadurga/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC).

Navadurga

 * ''Nominator(s): Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Navadurga is considered as nine manifestations of Goddess Durga in Hinduism; I think this list is interesting and informative. This list was created a few years ago but was not in the proper form and has been edited by me as per ideal list guidelines. This list can be a FL, so here it is. Nadiallah (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The sources used here are nowhere close to the kind you would expect for a FL. There's a blog, a kitchen appliance brand website, and several others that are definitely not high-quality reliable sources. AryKun (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue seems to have been removed, so I'm striking my oppose. Also pinging and . AryKun (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh, I really should have actually checked the sources here. Per Kavyansh, I'm unstriking my oppose. AryKun (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the above, there will be unquestionably be better sources available. Also, the text could do with proofreading by a native English speaker, as there are many fundamental issues with grammar, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Per all of the above reasons. Some sources appear to be written for children, and I doubt if it is reliable enough. But this is a potential topic. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes the following sources reliable and of good quality for featured lists (which represents Wikipedia's best work):, , ? The first one mentioned here appears to be for children. Moreover, there is also issue of, as I call it, "invisible uncited text". For instance, "Skandamata" row is cited to Ostor. But, upon verifying, I don't see anything of that kind on Ostor 2004, p. 34. Is that a page number issue. Till that is resolved, I stand by my oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

should this be archived? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep, nomination appears to be not going anywhere. Feel free to renominate once the issues presented have been fixed. -- Pres N  19:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.