Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/50 Cent discography/archive1

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 [1].

50 Cent discography edit

Featured list removal candidates/50 Cent discography/archive1

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. Candy o32 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]

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.