A good topic (GT) is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic.
This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the featured and good topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic.
Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at the Featured and good topics talk page. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.
The featured and good topics coordinators Aza24, MaranoFan and Kyle Peake determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.
To contact the FGTC coordinators, please leave a message on the FGTC talk page, or use the {{@FGTC}}notification template elsewhere.
You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic. For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure.
Supporting and objecting
Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured and good topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. Supports that clearly evaluate the criteria will be weighted more than those that do not.
If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
For a topic to be promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The FGTC coordinators are usually the ones to assess this consensus and close FGTC discussions. If there is a consensus to promote, the promote instructions are located here. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.
Hi, everyone! I am nominating this group of articles for Featured Topic candidacy. This topic is about the Filipino boy band SB19, known for their songs "Gento" and "Dam". They recently debuted at Lollapalooza, making them the first homegrown Filipino artist to perform at the festival. I began working on this topic in 2024, during which I was able to improve all the lists to meet the Featured List criteria, with the main article being recently listed as a Good Article this month. If considered, this would be the first Featured Topic I have significantly contributed to! I believe these articles provide quality and comprehensive coverage of the group's 8-year career, and I believe this topic may be a good addition to the running list of Featured Topics here on Wikipedia.
It is also worth noting that while each member has their own article, I did not include them in this overview. I was thinking the overview should focus more on their group activities, since each member also pursues their own career, which their respective articles should cover more in depth. Its inclusion has been raised previously with limited discussion. Hopefully, we can get more insights through this nom; I'm open to being swayed regarding whether or not this topic is complete. Your comments will be much appreciated! Thank you in advance for being here. Relayed(talk•contribs) 16:27, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment / Weak oppose. Oddly enough, I don't see a lot of GT/FTs on multi-member bands. Ben&Ben seems like the only one ( Wikipedia:Featured topics/Overview of Ben&Ben ), and its members don't have separate articles so the point is moot, they're covered in the top-level band article. For one-member musical acts, the top-level article on the musician is part of the topic (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Overview of Lady Gaga includes, well, Lady Gaga). I think this comes down to the standards we want to set for what an FT / GT on a band is expected to have. I'd be inclined to say that the individual band members should be included by default as a core part of the topic, barring crazy cases like AKB48 where each individual member is a much smaller slice of what makes the band notable. And even then, I'd expect the lists of members articles to be included in a hypothetical topic on a band with a ton of members / former members. (Usual disclaimer goes here that nice work has been done, just I'd argue for a larger scope to qualify - I think the five named musicians above should be part of a GT/FT nomination.) SnowFire (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
1998 Pacific hurricane season (1st supplementary nomination)
Support, nice addition. While we're on the subject, Madeline should probably be merged with October 1998 Central Texas floods. Now that we have the timeline, the topic wouldn't have to be lost if that were to happen. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Claiming co-nomination credit as a major contributor to the list being nominated for inclusion. Noting that, at least for my part, this is a WikiCup nomination. Dylan620 (he/they/she • talk • edits) 07:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Support. Vestrian24Bio 10:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Support This seems like a straightforward addition of the timeline article. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 20:28, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
This group of articles is an overview of the life, career, and achievements of one of South Korea's hallyu stars. The main article is the second Wikipedia article on a South Korean actor/singer that was ever promoted to GA status and the only one having all of its accompanying lists in feature list status. I did all the nomination process for GA and FL. I figured I should give it a try here as well.
--Preferwiki (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Supportigordebraga≠ 07:25, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Support. Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
I have worked very hard to elevate the quality of all of these articles. The ice dance article is a FA; all of the others are GA. This series includes the main article, the men's event, the women's event, the pairs event, the ice dance event, and the qualifying article, plus a separate article detailing the controversy at the ice dance event where the Russian team chose to stage their original dance to Australian Aboriginal music. Special thank you to User:Platinum Roses for their work with the ice dance issue. Bgsu98(Talk) 15:40, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Support; all GT criteria are met. Great work @Bgsu98! Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
One of the first mainstream applications of generative AI, 15.ai was a text-to-speech website that let users generate voices of fictional characters. Created by a pseudonymous individual named 15 and launched in 2020, it gained viral popularity through Internet memes and various fan works. In 2022, 15.ai was involved in a highly publicized controversy when it was discovered that an NFT company called Voiceverse had plagiarized 15.ai to promote its partnership with voice actor Troy Baker.
With the recent promotion of 15 (software engineer), all three articles in this topic are now GA. I am nominating this topic as a self-nomination. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment I am concerned about the notability for 15 (software engineer) separate from 15.ai itself as well as whether Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal fails WP:SUSTAINED. It appears to have happened over a very short period of time and otherwise had little longterm impact. One of my biggest concerns is probably whether the scandal needed to be forked from 15.ai per WP:NOPAGE, since Voiceverse was not even major enough to have its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. and If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance.. This is certainly true; the event lasted for about a month in January 2022, but it is still frequently cited as the go-to example of a failed NFT project: Feb 2022, Feb 2022, April 2022, Jan 2023, March 2023, Nov 2025, Nov 2025, Jan 2026, March 2026, April 2026. All of these sources are already cited in the Legacy section.
Regarding WP:NOPAGE, there is no single straightforward merger target, and there is so much sourcing for the incident that we would have to discard a large amount of information in order to make it WP:DUE for inclusion on a different page. Many sources concern solely on Troy Baker's partnership, but many others also focus on specific parts of the backlash and his eventual withdrawal, as well as plagiarism from 15.ai (which many sources don't even mention until days after the initial coverage). WP:NOPAGE directly states One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Preserving all of that through a merger would mean we'd have to distribute it across at least 15.ai and Troy Baker or placing the entire controversy within one participant’s article. The 15.ai article is already very long, and moving the substantial Baker-related material into his biography would be giving this episode disproportionate weight relative to his overall career. Furthermore, WP:SUMMARY says A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. and The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it, or an excerpt of it., which support the existing arrangement. This is the same reason why Development of Fez has its own article separate from Fez, and that in itself is a good topic already.
As for the notability of 15 (software engineer), the creator meets WP:NCREATIVE, which covers creators of a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. There's also information in the article that wouldn't make sense to be merged into 15.ai, so a standalone article is justified. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
15.ai is not a creative work but a software tool, the AI is doing the "creating", so by that metric he would fail WP:NCREATIVE. The article contains almost no personal information on him either due to his mostly-anonymous persona, the information largely regurgitated from the other articles. Ignoring the "15.ai" and "Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal" sections, the substantive content is approximately 1 paragraph.
So while I'm decently swayed by the argument about the controversy page, I am even more heavily convinced that 15's article is extremely shaky in terms of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:47, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: "15.ai is not a creative work but a software tool, the AI is doing the "creating", so by that metric he would fail WP:NCREATIVE."
WP:SOFT explicitly states Computer programs are creative works. What we're discussing is the software that 15 designed and developed, so the AI is not doing the creating. Its ability to generate speech does not negate his authorship of the software itself.
"The article contains almost no personal information on him either due to his mostly-anonymous persona, the information largely regurgitated from the other articles. Ignoring the "15.ai" and "Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal" sections, the substantive content is approximately 1 paragraph."
WP:GNG stipulates that addresses the topic directly and in detail, and indeed, there are multiple sources that discuss his research, startup career, his educational background, etc. Those are biographical. If we decide to arbitrarily set aside the sections about what he's best known for, then of course that would remove much of the career coverage on which notability rests. That's an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of WP:NOPAGE that many other biographies would certainly fail to qualify for notability under.
(I'm well-aware of WP:WHATABOUT; I'm simply pointing out that this line of thinking implies that, for example, Satoshi Nakamoto would fail to qualify for his own article because every single biography about him hinges on his work on Bitcoin. Imagine if we said "Satoshi Nakamoto isn't notable because if we remove all the information from his article relevant to Bitcoin, then we'd have very little personal information about him, so we should merge his article to Bitcoin instead"?)
Just because there is minimal private-life information, it does not invalidate the existence of such coverage. Excising biographical and career information like this and reducing the "substantive content" into a single paragraph is not grounded on any Wikipedia policy that I'm aware of.
WP:SOFT specifically states that "This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community." The original verbiage in the article said "Computer programs are products", and the "creative works" language was edited unilaterally by a single user in 2016 without consensus. This was challenged and reverted, but somehow the fact that a blocked sock was the one who reverted it caused it to permanently stick when it was restored. This is all to say that it does not appear to have been the product of any form of discussion, nor can WP:SOFT be cited in policy. A creative work is something distinguished by its uniqueness, while there can absolutely be a large number of identical software programs that do the same thing, but are slightly different under the hood. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Even if we disregard WP:SOFT, that seems like a rather arbitrary argument. The implication that a creator of a very well-known work fails to meet WP:CREATOR just because it involves creating it on a computer is a very strange line to draw. What about a video game? Is the article for the creator of Doki Doki Literature Club, Dan Salvato (which I see you've actually promoted into mainspace), not contrary to your argument? If we apply the exact same standards you're suggesting, Salvato also has a single paragraph to establish his notability. Why shouldn't we merge this article into Doki Doki Literature Club, in that case? Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
One difference with Dan Salvato is that he was a primary developer on Project M as well as DDLC, both notable creative works. As such, simply merging Salvato into DDLC didn't make sense to me when I was reviewing the page. It's possible his role in Project M was not major enough to matter, but I figured that if someone felt that strongly, a full merge discussion would make more sense than me unilaterally denying it.
Merging 15 into 15.ai makes far more sense, as that is the main thing he is known for. He made a few other things, but they don't seem standalone notable. That's setting aside the fact that I don't think an AI wrapper can be a creative work. Even if you do, that is the main thing he is known for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: That's setting aside the fact that I don't think an AI wrapper can be a creative work. With all due respect, if you had read the article, you would know that 15.ai is not an AI wrapper, so that would fail to apply here. If the project were an AI wrapper, then I would agree with you, but this is clearly not the same. This is why I don't consider something like GPTZero (which is an AI wrapper) to be a creative work, either. Furthermore, WP:CREATOR also does not require multiple notable projects, as criterion 3 explicitly allows a significant or well-known work. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Support The above reason for notability seems strong. From a personal view, I didn't know anything about the Voiceverse scandal before I read the article, so it's a very nice and useful article too. Bronymike2010 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
It might be snow kept honestly NRP (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Wait as this is now at DRV. Skyshiftertalk 16:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Support - agree with NRP that snow keep for 15 is possible. Closing as keep is almost guaranteed to happen. Anyways, all articles are GAs, so nothing's wrong on that front. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) (FAC) 20:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Not-cheesewhisk3rs: I'm really surprised no one has snow closed it yet... I'm an involved editor so I can't do it myself, unfortunately. Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Silvers Rayleigh I could, I'm uninvoled. Unless this counts as involvement, of course. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) (FAC) 22:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
@Not-cheesewhisk3rs: I don't think you'd be considered as involved, as you didn't provide a !vote in the AfD, so you should be good! Silvers Rayleigh (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
SupportTokiPony (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
As of 2026, two editions have been played; a total of nineteen nations have played in the Premier Cup. Fifteen teams have competed in every tournament, two of whom—Thailand (2026) and the United Arab Emirates (2024)—have won the title. Thailand are the current champions, having won the 2026 edition. The next edition of the tournament will take place in 2028.
I would like to make a good topic about Muammar Gaddafi and his closest aides, which I recently promoted to GA and in the case of Muammar Gaddafi, rescued his GA status. The Wikipedia:Developing Countries WikiContest is inspiring me more to nominate the good topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepharoah17 (talk • contribs)
Oppose because if the topic is "Allies of Muammar Gaddafi", first of all, how is that even defined? Allies based on what? And secondly, an article about "Allies of Muammar Gaddafi" would need to be created and promoted. Skyshiftertalk 23:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I know that where exactly the line for what counts as a topic varies, but wherever that line is, I think this is too far from it. It's possible that there might be a good/featured topic like "Muammar Gaddafi" or "Government of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi" or "Libyan Armed Forces under Muammar Gaddafi", but "Allies" is a bit too vague. And yes, I know that a GT for the entire topic of Gaddafi would be a herculean task, but GTs aren't easy to get. (Usual comment here that it's excellent work to be working on this topic and I hope this isn't discouraging. But... overly narrowly or arbitrarily drawn topics are a traditioal issue at GT.) SnowFire (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. How do we know this is an exhaustive list? Bgsu98(Talk) 23:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 (1st supplementary nomination)
All of Jane Remover's six studio albums have been brought to GA-status with my intention of forming a good topic, as I have nominated Revengeseekerz and Status Update Music (as co-nominator) for GA-status, and recently, their discography for FL-status. However, the main issue should be whether to consider including projects Remover released in different pseudonyms or only featured the albums that were released under their main name (the items without the short text). Outside of that, I wanna give thanks to @Averageuntitleduser:, @Locust member:, Camilasdandelions (inactive), @Cathodography:, @Tears in the club:, @Wackistan:, and @RedShellMomentum: for helping make this happen. - RTSthestardust (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Support: a labor of love from many editors. Good work. The Venturing and Leroy albums are notable because they are tied to Remover, so it seems right to include them. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Eduardo Peñalver became Georgetown president on July 1, and with his corresponding article never receiving a GAN prior to the expiration of the retention period on October 1, this topic fails criterion 3.b. JHD0919 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Saw this at the Former Topics, made no sense it being there with all the articles being Good. Indeed it's still a GT on the talk page. And then I checked the main page of the topic, new pages on genus of this family were created after the topic's promotion and never added in, and while two are GAs, one is nowhere near GA level. So let's put this up to either properly demote the topic or see what what @Super Dromaeosaurus:, one of the two who built this (the other has been MIA since 2022) has any say on the matter. igordebraga≠ 23:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Nothing. I am retired from this topic area and will not oppose the current. Regards, SuperΨDro 23:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
I'll work on it over the next few weeks. I already compiled most of the sources. Thanks for the nudge! Grk1011 (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Delist unless someone undertakes to resuscitate the delisted article. Let's go, San Marino! Bgsu98(Talk) 23:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
It wasn't delisted, I just haven't had time to get the most recent participation to GA. I'm planning to have it nominated before the end of the month though. Grk1011 (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
At the end of the month? This topic is already two months over the retention period (a recurring problem for this topic - this the third removal nomination for it for the last three articles needed for the topic). Thus I vote to delist. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 11:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, end of month. If it's delisted now, we'll just be right back here with a new GT nom in a few weeks. I figure it's easier to wait than to cause an additional processes. It can be tough to balance real life and editing, but my goal is to reduce the amount of work by others as well. Unlike a GA or FA where the presence of the top corner indication shows something about the quality of the article to the reader, GT indications are rather behind the scenes. Not sure I see the harm in waiting other than it being against the retention period. I think the end result is the same, just one option leads to more work. Grk1011 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Bully was released on March 28, and with its corresponding article never receiving a GAN prior to the expiration of the retention period on June 28, this topic fails criterion 3.b. JHD0919 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Delist per nomination. I know Kyle Peak it the promoter of most of this GA's and he might be able to promote it back when the time is right.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment I don't think I'd be allowed to vote on this list as a contributor to majority of these albums, however I don't think calling for demotion is suitable here. This is because while the retention period has been reached, myself and other editors have been working on Bully as you can see a record of on my talk page. --K. Peake 18:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Judging from the talk page it appears that @RTSthestardust and @Wackistan have also been working on the article. Paging them both here for their thoughts. JHD0919 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I would say to leave it for a bit since we're nearly done. Once the composition section is rewritten I'll submit it for GA. Wackistan (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: Sounds good, we are happy to leave it for now. Thanks for the communication. Aza24 (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
How is this coming along, Wackistan?--NØ 20:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
RTSthestardust was writing the new composition section but I don't think he's touched it in a bit. I'm pretty sure I have enough time today to finish it for him and add it in, though I'd prefer if someone else nominates the article themselves. Wackistan (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I had been focused on other projects at this time, but I might continue working on it tonight. It's a difficult article to go through. Once I'm done with the composition section, I'll merge it in with the whole article. - RTSthestardust (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I finished and finally stitched the composition section with the latest revision prior to that edit RTSthestardust (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
@Wackistan @Kyle Peake @JHD0919 I've been improving it further with illustrating the article and especially from the composition section. I wouldn't really nominate it yet until these things are finished: citation cleaning (like linking the websites on citations), working on personnel/what streaming service to credit, and info about the tour/concerts being more concise and less messy. RTSthestardust (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
For streaming services to credit, I'd suggest using maybe Spotify? It's the only one Gamma prioritizes updating the credits on (for example, Al Be Back's writing credit on "Damn" wasn't added to Apple, as was Glen 'Divinci' Valencia Jr.'s credit on "I Can't Wait". Wackistan (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Not sure why I was pinged here. I couldn't nominate it even if I wanted to, as it would be considered a drive-by nom. JHD0919 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Btw, I'm working on the track list and personnel on my sandbox to replace with. It would be better and concise than what remained on the article for months. - RTSthestardust (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
