The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]
I went through this list thinking I would just fix the heading that read "The List," I then read over it some more and realized that this list is very well composed, is one of the most engaging lists that I have read in a while. I believe that it meets the criteria and is deserving of FL status. Any feedback will be reacted upon swiftly and is greatly welcome. (Note:I will rewrite the lead.) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 02:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest withdrawal. the lead is pretty much empty. There is a bare URL (ref. #295). So many unreliable sources (NY Post, Cracked.com, Chm.bris.ac.uk). Inconsistencies with source formatting (publishers/works are randomly linked and book sources are cited both in References and works cited). There are also so many {{sfn}}'s that don't point to any citations (e.g. ref. 72, 91, 92, 94, 95). Also, "Note:I will rewrite the lead." is not something that is done at FLC. When a list is nominated for FL, it is expected to meet or nearly meet all the FL criteria. This list is far from reaching the FL standards. FrB.TG (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. FrB.TG (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving. --PresN 16:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]