Wikipedia:Proposed article demotion

Shortcuts

Good articles and very good articles are some of the best articles on Simple English Wikipedia. They have certain criteria that they must meet before they can be considered as a good or very good article (see Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles and Wikipedia:Requirements for very good articles). If someone notices that an article meets most or all of those criteria, they may list it on the Proposed good articles or Proposed very good articles page. The article is then voted on, and if enough people agree that the article is good or very good, it is promoted to that higher status.

However, sometimes a good or very good article is changed in such a way that it no longer meets the criteria, or new information may become available about the topic, making the article incomplete. In such a case, the article should be demoted from good article or very good article status.

Process of demotion

Demotion of a GA or VGA can be done in this way:

A named editor notices that the article no longer meets the GA or VGA criteria.
The editor lists the article on this page and adds {{pvgademotion}} (for VGAs) or {{pgademotion}} (for GAs) to the article's talk page to show that it is currently being reviewed and improved.
Major contributors to the article who helped it become a GA or VGA are notified, along with a note at Simple Talk to let the community know about the proposed demotion.
For two weeks following the discovery, the article can be fixed to again meet the criteria. If there is agreement that the problem has been fixed during this time, there does not need to be a re-vote; a named editor can remove the tag from the article, and put the {{vgood}} or {{good}} tag back.
If the problem is not fixed, the article will lose its status after the two-week period. When the article once again meets the criteria, it can be re-nominated for GA or VGA status and will follow the full promotion process from beginning to end.
When an article is demoted, the associated badge in its Wikidata entry should be removed.

Proposals for demotion

List proposals here, newer ones at the top. Each proposal should list what needs to be fixed. Within two weeks from being listed, an article listed here must be fixed to again meet the criteria, or have its higher status removed.

Use this code to add a proposal: {{subst:Pgapropose|page title|reason}} ~~~~

Ipswich Town F.C.

Ipswich Town F.C. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not enough refs, not much content. Needs far more references and a bit more content about it to be very good. The article has lots of citation needed tags. FantasticWikiUser (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of the VGA criteria by me:

1 - Pass
2 - I'm not knowledgeable enough on UK football clubs to make a decision
3 - Pass (Xtools reads 7KB)
4 - Pass
5 - Pass
6 - Pass (No major changes in the last year at least)
7 - Pass
8 - Pass
9 - Depends on if Template:cn & Template:Better source are considered like Template:Unreferenced
10 - (Minor) Fail (enwiki page contains external links, while this one doesn't, which is needed)

I am also concerned how 9 10/29 references are to the club's website, but I am on the fence on if it should be demoted for now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the external links from enwiki. But honestly, I think it fails at being comprehensive when compared to its en counterpart (for example, comparing both articles' history section after the team's relegation in 2002, 11 paragraphs on en vs a single sentence here that jumps straight to 2019). ShadowBallX (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've always thought the "no improvement templates" rule meant no maintenance templates at all, which Better source would be considered. As for citation needed, I just added a reference for that part, so we don't need to worry about it. ShadowBallX (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem if someone can just stick a single tag on a VGA and get it demoted. I'm sure there are no VGAs where someone couldn't stick a tag. ~2025-38858-60 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demote to regular article Raayaan 9911 17:08, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone give the original writer of the article a poke? While TRM hasn't been active here for like 10 years, he is still around on enwiki. Maybe he'd like to help to get the article fixed. -Barras talk 17:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a topic on his EnWp talk page, let's see... Eptalon (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we still have a problem, If I look at TRMs edits at enwp, I get a few (one digit figure, perhaps low two digit figure a month). So, the question is: how long should we wait for a response? Eptalon (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current state of the article, I'd say demote to GA status. The main issue here are the redlinks and some missing references. That's stuff, that can be fixed. -Barras talk 10:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals closed recently

Red Hot Chili Peppers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further changes should be made to this discussion.

Red Hot Chili Peppers (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Currently, this article doesn't stand out as one of the best on this project. Their music since 2011 isn't discussed in detail, and there is not enough coverage of the band's style, technique, inspiration, or lyrical themes. There are red links in the infobox and a few dead external links. I recommend this be demoted to good article (GA), as it still meets those criteria. canadachick (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's no longer in VGA shape fr33k man 16:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a VGA anymore. Navbox at the bottom is almost completely red. The article is also (partly) outdated. I'm not even sure if this still meets GA requirements. -Barras talk 08:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demote, a lot of work needs to be done to get the article back to the VGA standard. Until the article has the work undergone, it should not be a VGA.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:11, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 11:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

Related pages