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 kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The problem with this article is kind of complicated. Neither the Turkish Football Federation or the UEFA considers those champions as "national champion". The list is basically tells this: "those organisations were in a national level, therefore, they are national champions". This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy, because the editors are basically make comments on sources and add them as a different information. I am sure you didn't count this user's support who is a sock puppet that can easily be seen.

On the other hand, this all "the Turkish football champion" process was started by the administration of Fenerbahçe S.K. in 2017/2018. If you can just look at the older versions and changes have been made during those years, the article was transformed from the "List of Turkish Super League champions" into the "List of Turkish football champions". This version doesn't even mention about the other organisations because there is basically no reason to mention since they're not considered as one. If we look at the RSSSF source on January 2018, we can see that those championships are not listed. But by February 2018, during the time that the Wikipedia article is also being converted, and the Fenerbahçe S.K. administration activities, the RSSSF source is also being converted.

Furthermore, if you can just look closely to this edit, you can notice that "while Galatasaray is the most successful in the professional era with 20 Super League titles so far" is being removed. At that point, I have to mention that Galatasaray is the biggest rival of Fenerbahçe. Now, it starts to make more sense I believe :) By this edit, the same user adds "denied and not counted by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships by the TFF itself" part to the article which is a complete violation of the "no original research" policy that I mentioned before. By July 2018, the RSSSF source adds this "information" (!) as well. As you can see in here, that "source" is used by Wikipedia again and voila! We have the source for that content! More "improvements" were being made in the article after it's promoted to FL, and Fenerbahçe becomes de facto the most successful club as well (according to the original research of the user or Fenerbahçe S.K. of course, not for the Turkish Football Federation or UEFA or any governning body or any legal institution).

So as can be seen here, since 2017/2018, those manipulated edits and "improvements" are being made to support the claims of Fenerbahçe S.K., and they are clear violations of "no personal research" policy. The problem with the article is much more than its FL status, but we have to start from somewhere. Nanahuatl (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a little TL;DR for my taste. What FL criteria does the list fail and why? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man:, the article is a complete violation of "no original research" policy basically which makes it to fail the 3b criteria :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The stated reasons for the nomination above come a little too close to a conspiracy theory for me. Using RSSSF doesn't constitute no original research as far as I'm concerned. One thing I would note is the use of the source, Erdinç Sivritepe, which appears to be a fan-run website. Those would probably need to be replaced and maybe a copyedit is needed too. Other than that, I don't see enough for this list to be demoted. NapHit (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I talk with facts and sources @NapHit:, no theories :) RSSSF can be edited after you become a membership, or, you can just send an e-mail to contributers to edit. There's no control mechanism of the content and you can see clearly these additions are made after they are made to the Wikipedia article. And then using that as a source for here? Besides, as I mentioned, saying "they are considered national champions" is something that no sources mention. Sivritepe only lists champions of some diestablished events, doesn't say all of these events are/should be considered as one. If we add our comment and reach that conclusion, it'd be a clear violation of no original research policy.--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are several sources - including the Turkish Football Federation itself - that mention these organisations as national championships. Erdinç Sivritepe, who was a respected authority concerning Turkish football, clearly mentions the league in question as a national league for example (don't get irritated by the simple design of the website). More important than that, the founder of Galatasaray himself, Ali Sami Yen, cited these championships unmistakably as Turkish championships (Turkish source) in his official reports in 1941. In the article of the league there is even a contemporary newspaper article (from 1950), which further evidences my point and leaves no room for question. There is no doubt at all about the nature of the championships in question. The accusation of "original research" is baseless and has no substance whatsoever. Clear keep. Akocsg (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All of them are basically your comments on sources and a clear violation of no original research policy. "They were like this, so it should be like this". Of course you'd say keep because you are in Wikipedia basically to empose them and create a base for the claims :) Nanahuatl (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I've provided several reliable sources - which you are conveniently ignoring - all you do is repeat your baseless and false claim of "original research" (how are all those sources and historic files a "comment" of me, when they are literally proving my point?). Apparently you are rather uncomfortable with the content of the article itself then its status. Akocsg (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You provide, but instead of using the information that're given in them, you add your own comment and violate one of the most important Wikipedia policies :) "Hmmm it says this, so it's like that". Simple. As anyone can see from your changes, your reason to be here is to create a base for some claims are being made with the sports club that you are associated with, Fenerbahçe SK. Nanahuatl (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing- after two months, there's no consensus for this to be delisted, and the talk page discussion seems to now be about adding a controversy section or not (rather than radically changing the list), which is itself not yet in consensus and is stalled because the official national body is deliberating on this topic, which will settle it one way or another. --PresN 14:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been kept, 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.

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