I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets FL criteria. Being a 2005 nominee, it certainly fails to meet criteria needed to be a FL. Major updating and more reliable sources would be needed for this to meet FL criteria.Will211 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Apparently the World XI haven't played since 2005 so what needs updating? What more reliable sources do you need above ESPNcricinfo? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some tidying on this list now; mostly making the table accessible and fixing the sorting a bit. Harriastalk 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nomination is nonsense, the article is up to date and the sourcing is impeccably reliable. I see no issues with this list at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Chris, I am struggling to understand why this list has been nominated for removal. No reason to delist. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The reasoning is very vague. I don't see why the article has to be updated. Thanks Harrias for polishing the article. —Vensatry(Talk) 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there's no need of updating here. There are enough refs. Satisfies FL criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't outdated since this team hasn't played since 2005. Passes FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets FL criteria. Being a 2005 nominee, it certainly fails to meet criteria needed to be a FL. Major updating and more reliable sources would be needed for this to meet FL criteria.Will211 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify? Apparently the World XI haven't played since 2005 so what needs updating? What more reliable sources do you need above ESPNcricinfo? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some tidying on this list now; mostly making the table accessible and fixing the sorting a bit. Harriastalk 19:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nomination is nonsense, the article is up to date and the sourcing is impeccably reliable. I see no issues with this list at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Chris, I am struggling to understand why this list has been nominated for removal. No reason to delist. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The reasoning is very vague. I don't see why the article has to be updated. Thanks Harrias for polishing the article. —Vensatry(Talk) 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there's no need of updating here. There are enough refs. Satisfies FL criteria. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't outdated since this team hasn't played since 2005. Passes FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted to FL status way back in 2008, this list doesn't meet the current standards of sourcing.
Several awards sections have no sources at all. The "Billboard Decade-End" section has been unsourced since 2010. Skr15081997 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too much unreferenced content, and some of the awards are missing descriptions. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Many of the awards are missing references, particularly in the latter half of the list but elsewhere as well. It has not been well-maintained, as there are several dead links. When it was originally promoted to FL many years ago, it was a much shorter list: [4] They've either been nominated for a lot more awards since its promotion or the original expanders did not include a lot of awards. Either way, this is far from being a featured list anymore. In addition, the referencing formats are incorrect. Johanna(talk to me!) 17:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been removed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - – SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.