Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Birdman discography/archive1

Birdman discography

Featured list candidates/Birdman discography/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/Birdman discography/archive1

Notified: Sufur222, WikiProject Discographies

Nominating for removal due to many issues I've found (some which were worryingly present when the list was promoted). More specifically:

Article is plagued with dead links, specifically, 7 dead links.
~~His first Studio album I Need A Bag of Dope isn't referenced.~~
His sixth Studio album Rich Life isn't referenced.
Between As lead artist and As featured artist, a grand toal of seventeen singles without independent articles are not referenced to prove they are singles, as opposed to songs that had strong downloads and charted. twenty-three singles listings that have independent article are also not referenced. However, it shouldn't be ok for listings with articles to be without reference, for example, Stuntin' Like My Daddy's article doesn't give reference that it's a single either.
This is probably the biggest one for me, there's a lot of three figure numbers in singles tables. There's only 100 spaces on the Billboard Hot 100 (if you couldn't guess from the name) yet I see "118" and "109", there's a note that explains the songs charted on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles, however the 25 places on the bubbling under are not a direct extension, and the placing should have a "—" with the note next to it, as opposed to having the note next to the songs title, for some reason.
Similar to above, a lot of songs listed as above 50 in regards to the "US R&B" collumn. The name references the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, which as 50 places, yet I'm seeing "73", "65", "71". Some of these are explained in notes next to the songs titles, others are not. The main reference in the column does not cover the +50 places, thus needing additional citation.
3 references in the Notes section are dead, but for some reason don't appear in the checklinks analysis.

At this point I'd probably give it the old "Article has come a long way since its promotion in 2012", but most of these issues were present when it was promoted. Azealia911 _talk 22:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me about this. As the original submitter of the page to FL status, it concerns me that no one stopped to tell me these things during the original submission, although admittedly I've neglected it somewhat in recent times. I'll get everything fixed ASAP. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. Azealia911 _talk 15:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements seem to be being made to the article, and while it's not the best article on Wikipedia, I'm now satisfied that it meets the relevant criteria. Sufur222, thankyou for getting on my comments and improving the article. Withdrawing FLRC. Azealia911 _talk 03:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Azealia911. I sincerely apologise for the very slow speed at which the improvements have been made, but unfortunately real life has taken precedent over the last month. I'll continue to act on your comments when I can. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, no need to apologize at all. Real life always comes first. Cheers, Azealia911 _talk 14:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are still a few issues that are being worked on, do you two want me to leave this FLRC open for now for tracking or go ahead and close it and just take it to the talk page, given that the nom asked to withdraw? @Azealia911 and Sufur222: --Pres N 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: You can go ahead and close this. I have complete faith in Sufur222 that they will address all the comments made here. Thanks, Azealia911 _talk 17:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]