Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/CZW World Heavyweight Championship/archive1

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: As this is a slightly unusual case, I shall explain my actions in more detail than I would for promoting/failing a FL candidate

Result: Keep as a FL. (I'll archive this presently) Tom pw (talk) (review) 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has run ten days without attracting any votes to remove other than the nomination.
 * The fact that this nominator's first action as a (registerred) editor should affect how the nomination is considered
 * The fact the nominators has been reported as blocked points to this being a "bad faith" nomination
 * A newly promoted FL shouldn't be nominated for removal unless it has undergone major changes

Almost all of its sources are from cagematch.de, which is a thoroughly and entirely unreliable source. Cagematch.de is a fansite, made by fans without any sort of fact-checking process. How can the list be reliable if the source is not reliable? I don't think that this should be a featured list.==Mouse Pad of Doom 17:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC) I was not aware that the article had been nominated for status until it had passed, at which time I became aware of the nomination.==Mouse Pad of Doom 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It says at the very top of WP:FLRC "Do not nominate lists that have recently been promoted (such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates)"; this list was just promoted less than two hours ago. I would also note that the nominator created this account exactly two minutes before nomination. I'll abstain from voting and let the community decide, but this doesn't seem like a very sturdy nomination. --MarcK 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone else find it odd this account was created and in its first minute of creation it listed this for a featured list removal? –– Lid(Talk) 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, the normal procedures may have been ignored, which is understandable if MousePad is a newbie. There are several reasons for avoiding FLRC so soon after promotion. These include:
 * The arguments for removal may already have been discussed. Continuing that discussion, so soon after closure, would be disruptive. This is not the case here as nobody commented on cagematch.de.
 * It is most discouraging for the nominator to go from joy to grief. Sorry MarcK.
 * Once promoted, a list/article gets more exposure. This may cause a period of instability in the text, which should not be pounced on. This isn't the case here, though promotion is cited as the reason MousePad noticed the list nomination.
 * The removal discussion may be less likely to see fresh eyes and ideas.
 * If the reason for removal was one of style or had already been discussed, I'd certainly argue that it should be closed. However, MousePad raises a serious issue—failure to comply with a core policy: WP:Verifiability. It may be that some of the reviewers did not notice that the website was an amateur production. Certainly, being in German makes it hard to judge (being a non-English source counts against it). I've examined the "About us" pages, which includes details of the Cagematch editors. They seem reasonably organised, and it is not a one-man outfit. However, they are mostly students having a bit of fun in their spare time. Wikipedia, IMO, should not be founded on this kind of source, for it is not really any different from letting those guys edit on WP with their own original text. Opinions differ here: some recent discussions on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability have suggested relaxing the requirements for "pop culture" articles. It is possible that Cagematch is a sufficiently well-established and known fansite that it meets the proposed relaxation of the rules. However, at present, WP:V has not been changed to (generally) allow such sources. There's always WP:IAR if you feel very strongly that this source is OK.
 * In summary, if I'd bothered to review this list when it was a candidate, I'd have been an Oppose. The current text of WP:V does not, IMO, allow such sources to be considered reliable. If alternative sources cannot be found, it may be better to remove this list since keeping it as an FL sets an example in opposition to WP:V. Colin°Talk 16:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Added a couple of sources, first a published book source on the pre-2000 title changes (sadly my copy only goes until 2000) and then the rest from Solie's Vintage Wrestling website which has a very good title history section - if nothing else then Solie's website corroborates the champions, dates & locations found on cagematch.de. Independent corroboration on a subject that's not likely to be found outside of wrestling related websites. MPJ-DK 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note as per this checkuser the opener of this is an open proxy SPA and a likely JB196 puppet. –– Lid(Talk) 09:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it's also almost a text book case of "bad faith nomination" IMO MPJ-DK 09:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks MPJ-DK, for addressing the WP:V concerns. Those changes, together with the information that has come to light about the nominator, mean I'm happy for this FLRC to be dismissed. Colin°Talk 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problemo, glad I could help get this resolved MPJ-DK 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: nominator blocked indef. Moreschi Talk 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)