Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/August 2010
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kept
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 22:15, 31 August 2010 [1].
- Notified: Gary King, WP:Companies
Looking at the featured list, and its main article Red Hat, I believe that this featured list could reasonably be included as part of the related article, which therefore violates FL criteria 3b. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- De-list I agree this could be in the main article, quite a limited number of items. Main article cd do with a re-write. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist This is one of those "no-brainer" lists to me.--Cheetah (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Could and should be included in the main article in prose form. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist and merge Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:09, 7 August 2010 [2].
- Notified: Underneath-it-All
Lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD, albums and singles positions not sourced. Miscellaneous, music videos, and DVD's not sourced. Several problems, speedy remove. Candyo32 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove – I'm not going to call for this to be speedily removed, since there's always the possibility that someone will come around and make improvements. However, I also notice the issues with the lead and shortage of references, and the general referencing that is in place doesn't inspire much confidence; Everyhit and aCharts have been questioned numerous times before. There's also a dead link and a disambiguation link, as far as cleanup goes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm failing to recognise the mentioned flaws. Maybe I'm missing something about what exacly you want to delete here but if there are smaller flaws in the discography page I would rather ask you to fix it instead of spending time on a delete discussion. Most of the entries seem to besourced, however it is difficult on these tables not to pass into WP:OVERLINKING (sorry, no sign within englich WP: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Peter.dittmann)--84.174.128.220 (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this is not a deletion discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a deletion discussion, it is a de-listing discussion because virtually everything in the singles, miscellaneous, and music videos is unsourced, and the lead is insufficient. Candyo32 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a start bit frankly this does require a lot of work something which at the moment I am unable to do though I would hope that I am able to in the future. But in the mean time unless someone else takes it on I'd delist. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Some work's been done, but per above a lot more is needed yet. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist inadequate lead, internal inconsistencies, severe lack of references e.g. in the videos section, compare to any recently promoted discog, this is sorely lacking, and not our finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 removed by Dabomb87 15:09, 7 August 2010 [3].
- Notified: Spellcast, Wikien2009, WikiProject Hip hop
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD, Several charts in albums & singles aren't sourced. Certifications shouldn't be used for one time countries on the page (such as Russia), which elongates the table. Certifications should be with the single. Other charted songs are not sourced. Candyo32 04:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support de-listing speedy removal, discogs are supposed be exemplory of wiki's best work this is not.
- The lead is insuffiecent per nom. comments,
- The album charts are not properly sourced (acharts.us should not be used and refs should be present for EACH chart)
- Album section is full of certificates but no mention of the linked chart. E.g. if Norway's certificate is given then Norway should appear in the album's chart table. etc.
- Samething for soundtracks (also the word soundtrack should be removed from the album's title), not appropriately source
- Mixtaps need sourcing
- Singles not properly sourced
- Single certificates should appear alongside their singles per MOS:DISCOG
- Other charted songs is completely unsourced (also bubbling under charts should NOT be added on top of HOT100 as they cannot be accurately and reliably sourced)
- Not convinced that appearances are properly sourced.
- Music videos need individual sources.
- Some references are bare and there is WP:OVERLINKING
- General formatting is appalling. All tables and columns should be equally aligned.
- The original version which was awarded FL status here should not have been awarded FL status as that also did not meet many of the standards above. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the current version should be delisted for now, I disagree that the original didn't meet the standards at the time. Spellcast (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the neither of the speedy removal criteria applies here, so this FLRC will last for at last two weeks, per WP:FLRC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original version which was awarded FL status here should not have been awarded FL status as that also did not meet many of the standards above. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I haven't looked at this since 2008, and it's changed quite a bit since then. Although the amount of information has increased, so has the unsourced content (and it would've been a lot worse if I took off the semi-protection). For any article to keep its quality, it needs a main author or a select few editors who do the bulk of the work. The problem is that once the main author or editors no longer monitor an article, its quality will inevitably reduce over time. This is especially true for popular music acts, whose articles are among the hardest to maintain the quality of in the long term. I know this can always be renominated if some minor cosmetic changes were done, but for now, delist. Spellcast (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per reasons stated above. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove This list is not better than featured in wiki-pt. Vitor Mazuco Msg 01:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. We can close this now, two weeks and no improvements to many issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist concur with above, far too many issues, no intent to improve (by anyone) and in no way does this resemble our finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.