Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2021 log

Kept

1899 Kentucky gubernatorial election

6 articles

Taylor v. Beckham

William Goebel was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~: the topic is definitely incomplete without one of the two main candidates. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem appears to have been resolved. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Armbrust and Bryanrutherford0: I have attempted to resolve the issues for William Goebel was delisted as FA, and this article is currently a Good Article Nominee. For the time being till someone takes it for review, can this removal candidacy be placed on hold? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you've got it at GAN, then we'll wait to see the outcome of that process. Good luck! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes just to echo the above, myself and the other coordinators have no issue in holding until a GAN process can take place Thank you for taking the initiative! Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 and @Bryanrutherford0 – Happy to inform that William Goebel just passed it GA nomination, and is listed as a good article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep William Goebel has since become a GA, making the rational choice of nominating for removal no longer hold valid. --K. Peake 07:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since everything is up to standards now I dont see anymore reason to keep this open much longer. The topic retains its GT status. GamerPro64 23:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islands of Scotland

St Kilda, Scotland was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It looks to me as though the St. Kilda archipelago is within the scope of List of outlying islands of Scotland, and so should probably never have been part of this topic proposal in the first place. Maybe it can be done without? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bryan Rutherford. I had to think about it a bit, but they are quite right. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion about the scope but a quick look indicates that some of the lists contain verifiability issues and original research, which I've flagged on List of freshwater islands in Scotland. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I do not think St Kilda is an article that truly belongs here, I do agree that the Outlying Islands article has noticeable issues. However, it should be subject to a FA review before I potentially vote for demotion, as the user(s) may resolve any issues within a decent amount of time. --K. Peake 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the consensus is to keep the topic and remove St Kilda from the topic. Good to close then. GamerPro64 16:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Awards

The article Hugo Award for Best Series has existed for five years but is not a FL like the remaining articles. As such, this topic currently fails WP:FTCR #1D. Note that the missing article is in fairly good shape, so it could probably be added to the topic easily if someone put in time, but until that happens the topic should be demoted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask me about nominating the list instead of starting an FLRC? (also, the article was started in April 2018, so, 3 years). Anyway, yeah, it's been long enough for a while to get sent to FLC, I'll get it polished up and nominated. --Pres N 03:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Honestly, I wasn't sure who to ask about updating it since most of the lists seem to have been brought to FL a while ago. I'd much rather see the list get promoted than the topic get demoted. If you're willing to update it, that would be great and I'd happily move to withdraw this. (As to the five-year comment, I was going off the first year listed in the article, but my point stands – the topic has been incomplete for a while, and I felt FTRC was justified, at least as a motivating factor to get the list done.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as a general note for future FLRCs- if you see that a set of FLs were all done by the same person, and the non-FL list was recently updated by that same person, it's fair to assume that that person is the one to contact before hitting them with a formal process. --Pres N 05:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FTC coordinators: Since the article in question is currently listed at FLC, I am moving to withdraw this nomination for the time being. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - GamerPro64 17:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout

Wipeout series

10 articles

Wipeout

Wipeout 2097

Wipeout 64

Wipeout 3

Wipeout Fusion

Wipeout Pure

Wipeout Pulse

Wipeout HD

Wipeout 2048

Wipeout Omega Collection

Nominating this because Wipeout Omega Collection has been greatly sourced since the last time this was discussed and thus stands as its own article. As such this topic is incomplete. GamerPro64 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: the article is clearly notable and it not being up to GA-status or even nominated means this topic should be demoted. --K. Peake 07:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Remove~~: the series certainly requires the latest installment. Sure hope someone picks this up! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly, I don't think I'll have enough time to save this GT by bringing Wipeout Omega Collection to GA. I will of course renominate this once I've done so. ♦ jaguar 16:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jaguar I have already cast my vote, but I'd like to remind you that the retention period for topics is up to three months. --K. Peake 08:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the retention period. I may be a bit rusty after three years but I'll make a start on the article hopefully tonight. ♦ jaguar 08:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar I meant three months after release, as that is what the criterion says if you look. It is obviously much longer since the collection, but the pass of this topic previously was not an error since that was before the article in discussion existed. --K. Peake 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~ Sadly the topic no longer meets 1.d. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/continue with supp. nom, now that the collection is a GA, it now meets 1.d. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Remove~~ Even though I vote reluctantly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Director comment' - noticed Wipeout Omega Collection is nominated at GAN now so we'll have to keep this nomination up pending the result of the review. GamerPro64 18:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout Omega Collection is now a GA, completing this good topic. ♦ jaguar 20:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and then do a supplemental nomination for Wipeout Omega Collection. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake, Bryanrutherford0, Spy-cicle, and MarioSoulTruthFan: the collection has been promoted to GA status and I would like for you to reassess the topic. GamerPro64 18:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: That resolves the concern here, I think! Should this then be moved to a supplemental nomination? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I await when a supplemental nomination has been at least submitted for the new GA, then I will re assess. --K. Peake 19:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wipeout Omega Collection's now GA. «2nd|ias» 03:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It resolves the issue. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The collection's now GA, so there's no issue anymore. AryKun (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With that article being GA now, the issue's moot. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All articles are GA now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to keep – Aza24 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

Group 4 elements

5 articles

Titanium

Zirconium

Hafnium

Rutherfordium

Titanium is no longer at FA, so the topic is ineligible for GT status. AryKun (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Director comment - Normally we wait three months after a demotion to nominate the topic for review. I'll keep the review up since we are under a month for the grace period and I don't see major work being done at this time to get Titanium to GA status. GamerPro64 06:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: Unfortunately, the topic is certainly incomplete without Titanium. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: per Bryan Rutherford reasoning. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Along with titanium, Group 4 element (the main topic) is being listed for GA Reassessment. So quite a long ways from home. --The helper5667 (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, although I hope that this will be resuscitated sometime soon. Mover of molehills (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with consensus to remove. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa-class battleships

Iowa-class battleships

10 articles

USS Iowa (BB-61)

USS Iowa turret explosion

USS New Jersey (BB-62)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

USS Missouri grounding incident

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

USS Illinois (BB-65)

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

Armament

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship was demoted on 4 December 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: There seems to have been some discussion of merging that article into the main article, and if that were decided upon, then the rest of the topic could stand, but as long as the consensus is in favor of keeping the armaments article, the topic is now incomplete. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove this article is clearly a significant one for the topic and looking at the revision history, it is very clear nobody has been working towards FA candidacy again. --K. Peake 10:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom reasons. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nomination, it's also noteworthy that Missouri is currently at FAR as well. Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with consensus to remove. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films

The grace period for No Time to Die has expired, and it is not nominated at GAN or FAC. Since the topic is not complete anymore, I don't see how it can retain featured status. (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Yep, it has to go without the latest film. Hopefully someone will pick it up! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I was actually about to check the retention periods to see if the one for this topic had been reached yet and since I cannot see evidence of any user(s) planning to promote the article for GA, this needs to be demoted. --K. Peake 11:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as the topic is incomplete when No Time to Die hasn't been put up for FA or GA nominations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a gun barrel the camera is inside of? I never knew what that was. But, yes, Remove per the criteria. Panini! • 🥪 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per the criteria. --The helper5667 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to remove. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phedina

Phedina

3 articles

Brazza's martin

Mascarene martin

The main article, Phedina, has been turned into a redirect to one of the included articles. This leaves just two articles (1a) and no lead article (2). CMD (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: With Brazza's Martin removed from the genus, this topic no longer exists, unfortunately. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Bryan. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Bryan. AryKun (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Bryan. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I had a poke around the subject—bearing in mind the only birds I'd recognise are on a menu—to see if there would be some other way to restructure these featured articles in a topic that could conceivably be salvaged within a realistic time frame, but it seems no grouping that would include both wouldn't also include a substantial number of other, non eligible, articles too, unfortunately. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per Bryan; this no longer has enough substance to meet FT. Hog Farm _Talk 19:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, not only has the main article become a redirect, but without it a new topic would only be two articles. --K. Peake 07:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to delist as Featured topic - GamerPro64 16:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inside No. 9

Inside No. 9

13 articles

"La Couchette"

"The 12 Days of Christine"

"Nana's Party"

"Tom & Gerri"

"The Harrowing"

"The Trial of Elizabeth Gadge"

"Séance Time"

Inside No. 9 has now run for six series; this GT listed the first two series, and the third are actually all GAs/FAs, but there's little-to-no progress for episodes in the next three series (which I believe are all notable). (So that's a 1(d) issue.) Long past any retention period, regrettably (series 4 aired in 2018). Minimum way to get this back to GT could be to create list articles for each series, get them to FL, and then make three topics for the first three series. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Nowhere near complete, as the nom makes clear. Tough to keep topics on ongoing subjects up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this can't be a featured or good topic any more as there are no articles on many of the recent episodes -- I always meant to get to them, but never did! I wonder whether we could not just have three separate topics for series 1-3? Would there need to be "list of episode" articles for each series (i.e., could the main IN9 article not work as the lead article required by the topic criteria?) It seems odd to have to create those lists purely for the purpose of having the topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that if you have the main article as Inside No. 9 then the topic must be the whole show (criterion 1(d)) and so you need every episode, and if you have the topic as "Inside No. 9 series 1" then you need a main article/list that's just about the first series (criterion 2). Maybe someone else can say more definitively whether this is right or point to examples of it being done differently. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes sadly for this current topic of with the main article as "Inside No. 9" you need all episodes. Alternatively, you could have possibly "Overview of Inside No. 9" with List of Episodes and Awards and nominations, (plus list of characters if it exists) though that does not seem to possible in this case since from the looks of it the awards table is not long enough to justify a split and there is not list of episodes either since it already fits in the main article. This can somewhat be difficult to do with British shows since they on average have fewer episodes per series meanining less likely for an separate award list and separate list of episodes (Example topic). Bilorv's idea of splitting the topic into different series like series 1, series 2, could work assuming a separate article could be made for each series, though can be tricky to do if there are only 6 episodes in a series (Example topic). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Sadly no longer meets 1.d. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: per Bryan's comment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Incomplete as it stands, and as an ongoing programme this is likely to recur even if the extant episodes are all brought up to par. However, I would not be opposed to breaking this up into seasons without the need for separate season articles; the nature of British television "seasons" feels much less conducive to separate articles, and I would personally have no issue with reusing the Inside No. 9 article as the lead, piped appropriately to earmark each topic as "Series One", etc. Others may disagree but then again that's why we have promotion candidacies and not an automatic process. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to demote – Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physical geography of Somerset

Sadly an article (Chew Valley Lake) was delisted due to not meeting FA requirements and the notice period has expired. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: Article delisted, and no sign of efforts to restore it to the standard. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove unfortunate to see this topic become incomplete, but nobody has shown any interest in even re-nominating the article after its delisting. --K. Peake 14:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per buidhe. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom and Bryan. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - It's been 4 months since this was opened at Chew Valley Lake isn't back in action yet. Hog Farm _Talk 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to delist as good topic - GamerPro64 22:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Belarus

3 articles

Flag

National Emblem

"My Belarusy"

The main article was delisted in February and the retention period has expired so this does not meet requirements for a featured topic. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: The main article is not close to GA, nor does it appear to be under improvement. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Bryanrutherford0. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the topic needs to be demoted with the main article no longer a FA. --K. Peake 14:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom - a key part of the topic, and it's far from GA status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove lead article has been demoted and is far from ga status. Hog Farm _Talk 20:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove main article is needed for this topic's scope. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to demote. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

12 articles

Galilean moons

Exploration

The grace period has expired and Jupiter has since been demoted from FA nor is it a currently a GA either and it is an essential part of this topic's scope. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove this is literally the main article of the topic, so demotion is obviously the correct way to go now. --K. Peake 07:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: What a shame! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove As this is the parent article for the topic, it needs to be featured. NapHit (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to delist--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

17 articles

Earth

Asteroid belt ^(subtopic)

Jupiter ^(subtopic)

Dwarf planets ^(subtopic)

Formation and evolution

The grace period has expired and Jupiter has since been demoted from FA nor is it a currently a GA either and it is an essential part of this topic's scope. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 20:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove since the planet is a key element of the solar system, so the lack of it in this topic is detrimental. --K. Peake 12:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: What a shame! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Kyle Peake. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: A shame. No indication of renomination of Jupiter for FAC, so remove is the way to go. Ergo Sum 17:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove A crying shame as this is a brilliant topic, but rules are rules I'm afraid. Hopefully, someone restores Jupiter to featured stats in the near future. NapHit (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Extremely sad, but this doesn't meet the criteria with Jupiter demoted. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to delist as Featured Topic - GamerPro64 00:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

République class battleships

République-class battleship

3 articles

République

Patrie

This topic completely overlaps with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of France. So either this should be delisted or the two members of this ship class should be removed from the Battleships of France topic (and they should be indicated as a subtopic). Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove: The "Battleships of France" topic is not too large for comfort, so I think there's no need to break it and the other naval topics out into loads of smaller subtopics about every class of ships. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. P anini ^🥪 16:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Taking off my delegate hat, I agree, though be advised that there are a lot of other ship-class topics that have been subsumed into larger topics that will need similar treatment. I've notified the original nominator for his take and we should wait for that before any action is taken.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Bryanrutherford0. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to delist as good topic - Looks like the majority consensus is to delist it as a topic itself rather than remove it from the other topic. GamerPro64 02:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)

Invincible

5 articles

"You Rock My World"

"Speechless"

"Butterflies"

"Cry"

"Heaven Can Wait"

Fails 1d. as Heaven Can Wait (Michael Jackson song) has existed for 10 years. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Er, actually, it seems to have just been redirected to the album... If you think that song's article *should* exist, then you can revert and discuss the redirect, which was made without a discussion. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I expect the next step will be AFD where we will discuss if it should exist (even though Speechless (Michael Jackson song) is literally built upon the same type of sources Heaven Can Wait is citing now, but as that one is a FA, no one questions its validity). Furthermore, WP:NSONGS is clear "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If Heaven can wait, so can this FTRC. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Heaven Can Wait" needs and AFD in the meantime. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can open one, but skimming the other articles, all of them but "Butterflies" include unsourced statements and unreliable sources (although Butterflies includes a reference to Discogs). This is a common problem I have found with several pre-2015 good/FA/FL articles, they simply don't age well. They get stuck in the year they are written as Wikipedia moves forward. If you add that the writers leave the project, that no one maintains them (through edits and updates) and that new editors add unsourced content, you end up with disasters like In My Place or Djibouti women's national football team. Removing "Heaven Can Wait" might gain the FT some time, but eventually "Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Invincible (Michael Jackson album)/archive2" will exist because the other articles are a reflection of how articles were written in the early 2010s. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per Tbhotch. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Heaven Can Wait (Michael Jackson song) is not a redirect and is currently a mainspace article. If it is not notable that can argued and discussed at AfD, but it currently is an article and thus is in the scope of the topic, and the article is not GA+. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 00:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to delist as good topic Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]