The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it doesn't currently meet criteria. If issues are addressed, though, I'd be happy to keep at FL. Thanks! TBran dl ey 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments
Wait, can we split this list into 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
TBran dl ey 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply
After a huge copy-edit, and attention from members of WP:DOH, I now believe it meets criteria, and, unless more issues can be found, I withdraw this nomination. TBran dl ey 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because...
Cheetah (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Update The referencing structure has been re-done. Several citations and references are added. Several footnotes (now grouped under explanatory notes) have reference now.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 21:12, 31 August 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it appears to be way out of date. There are currently 111 releases according to Willowtip's own website, yet only 91 are listed here (and the lead claims "Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists."). The list doesn't meet our current, higher standards (e.g. MOS:DTT), one dead and one suspiciously dead link. Finally, it's worth considering whether this shouldn't just be failed on 3b as it should be merged back into the main article about the record label itself. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [4].
This January 2008 promotion has numerous deficiencies that cause it to fail the current FL criteria, and in several respects has declined in quality since it was promoted.
I would suggest that most of the "Records" section be removed, as much of it is trivial. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because from the emboldened timeline of.. onwards this is not Featured quality. The lead is minimal and sparsely referenced, while many points of the timeline itself are unreferenced, particularly those from the last few years. This might have been worthy of the Featured tag in 2007, but four and a half years on, it certainly not. Unfortunately I don't think there is really any chance of this being saved in a reasonable amount of time. Harrias talk 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Initial comment seems like there's a bunch of issues with WP:MOS (like WP:DASH and the WP:LEAD) and also bad links so those should be addressed initially otherwise this is a clear delist. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe it doesn't currently meet criteria. If issues are addressed, though, I'd be happy to keep at FL. Thanks! TBran dl ey 18:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments
Wait, can we split this list into 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC) reply
TBran dl ey 17:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply
After a huge copy-edit, and attention from members of WP:DOH, I now believe it meets criteria, and, unless more issues can be found, I withdraw this nomination. TBran dl ey 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because...
Cheetah (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Update The referencing structure has been re-done. Several citations and references are added. Several footnotes (now grouped under explanatory notes) have reference now.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Giants2008 21:12, 31 August 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it appears to be way out of date. There are currently 111 releases according to Willowtip's own website, yet only 91 are listed here (and the lead claims "Willowtip has released 72 albums from 52 artists."). The list doesn't meet our current, higher standards (e.g. MOS:DTT), one dead and one suspiciously dead link. Finally, it's worth considering whether this shouldn't just be failed on 3b as it should be merged back into the main article about the record label itself. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [4].
This January 2008 promotion has numerous deficiencies that cause it to fail the current FL criteria, and in several respects has declined in quality since it was promoted.
I would suggest that most of the "Records" section be removed, as much of it is trivial. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 15:36, 18 August 2012 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because from the emboldened timeline of.. onwards this is not Featured quality. The lead is minimal and sparsely referenced, while many points of the timeline itself are unreferenced, particularly those from the last few years. This might have been worthy of the Featured tag in 2007, but four and a half years on, it certainly not. Unfortunately I don't think there is really any chance of this being saved in a reasonable amount of time. Harrias talk 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Initial comment seems like there's a bunch of issues with WP:MOS (like WP:DASH and the WP:LEAD) and also bad links so those should be addressed initially otherwise this is a clear delist. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC) reply