Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timwi (talk | contribs) at 06:26, 25 March 2004 (add == section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you feel an article on Wikipedia:Featured articles should not be featured (because it has since been changed, or whatever), list it here.

Add new removals on top, one section per article.

Articles nominated for removal

Pythagorean theorem

Editor war on subsection Relationship to non-Euclidean geometry and physical space, Tosha 23:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

American English

This is so not a featured-article-quality article. It's basically a list of AE words, without enough consideration of the use of the language, the reasons why the language grows so explosively, how it compares to other English dialects...It's just not all that brilliant. jengod 03:38, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

While I find the article to be more than a simple list, I do agree that it should be removed. The article needs significant copyediting for proper English usage and grammer, ect, which is ironic for an article about an English language. Gentgeen 10:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oppose (i.e., oppose removal, support retention). I tend to wonder whether we're looking at the same article. (Indeed, we may not be, since Wikipedia articles change, often in response to complaints.) I'm completely unable to see in what sense it's basically a list. It's true that the table of loan words is about half the length of the article; but then, tables tend to use up a lot of lines. As it now stands, the article has a good deal to say about comparison to other dialects, and the historical reasons therefor. As to copy editing, I've copy edited several things that were proposed for Featured status (with mixed success; some just can't be repaired adequately, e.g., History of China, which I'd like to see fixed and Featured); but I see little editing needed here. One almost wonders if the problem is with English usage, such as "The first wave of English-speaking immigrants was settled..." which in Britain might have a plural verb, but not (usually) in US usage. It's likely that specific complaints will be heeded if they appear on the Talk page. Dandrake 01:56, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Concept album

I nominated concept album to be removed from Featured Articles. It consists of one paragraph that vaguely tells the history, and then a list of about 150 examples - with descriptions as informative as "a man goes insane," "The story of a poor outcast," and "Deals in part with bouncing back from near tragedy." Work needs to be done in detailing the history a well as in verifying and properly explaining the examples. Don't get me wrong, I love the info the article gives me - but as it stands now, it really shouldn't be a feature. Kingturtle 02:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pub quiz

It's not necessarily a bad article. It's also not that long, not that informative, and really, not all that brilliant. Ambivalenthysteria 07:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the American Civil War

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)--mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I don't care about featured status in and of itself, I'm worried that Mav's sending a message that there is no place for a measure of depth and substance on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time or energy to read an 80KB + article, then there's the timeline toward the bottom of the article, the intro lead in sentence, and the one paragraph overview just for you. But others are looking for substance and an overview of where historians disagree, not a dinky chronology that anyone can find in an almanac.
I'm not alone in this regard. Note, e.g., this comment on the talk page: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks."
See also "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 . An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..." From time to time Wikipedia has to address issues of such complexity. And a "long" article is the only way to give credence to a subject with such a rich historiographical tradition. 172 01:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't create a ~20KB summary then I will. I will start with expanding your overview and combining that with the timeline. There are very valid technical and readability reasons to split this monster up. --mav 06:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you will not create redundant article. The executive summary of the origins article belongs in - and is found in - the parent History of the United States article, which contains the executive summaries of its component daughter articles. If you choose to "expand" the overview by "combining that with the timeline," it will go up on VFD right away.
Nor will you dismember the main body of the text. Although you're caught up in the "the news style mantra", I have cited ample evidence demonstrating that others find the in-depth coverage helpful and readable. Nor can you take issue with the latter. A lead-in sentence, an overview, and a timeline already supplement the origins article for clarity and readability. 172 07:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some facts you deleted from this section (which was talk moved from my talk page):

Just for everyone to note, I removed your spam. Perhaps had you "summarized" your spam in the first place I would've had no need to remove it. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not spam - I moved the talk and deleted it from my talk page. --mav
  • The text alone of the 88KB article takes at least 12+ seconds to download for a 56K connection (assuming that the modem is operating at max speed which means 7KB/second - most 56K modems max out at 4-5 KB a second).
  • Many browsers cannot edit such a long article.
  • Most readers don't have the time to read it (it took me over 50 minutes to read every word).
    • Your point? You have a disdain for serious history on this site, but others don't, and I've cited ample evidence demonstrating that you're in the minority - if not alone. You seem to like almanac-style lists, but I will ensure that readers looking for something else have a choice. You have the "the news style" executive summary and the timeline, which you can feel free to expand. But there's no way in hell that I'm letting you dumb down this article. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not have a disdain for serious history - that is an unfounded personal attack. I'm also not the only person who does not like the length of the article and wishes to break it up. Nowhere have I advocated that any of your prose should be removed. Summarizing the main points and putting the detail in daughter articles is not dumbing down anything - it is making it more useful for a larger number of people who may not want to spend an hour to get the major points. --mav
        • No, you are alone. Alex, the other user concerned with the length, called the article "excellent." His concerns are logistical. In fact, he seems to be on my side on the talk page, in favor of splitting it up into several parts rather than splitting up along the lines of the New Imperialism series. Alex is coming to realize that this article cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. But this organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. As a historian, I knew that this was the only workable organization for an encyclopedic article of this nature on Wikipeida (and I'll defend my reasoning on a more appropriate page). Aside from Alex, the article has received ringing praise from everyone else but you. Why? You're a copyeditor caught up with "news style." The other people who've given us feedback on the article, however, read the article due to a different set of reasons - that is, they were hoping to actually learn something about the origins of the Civil War. I know you mean well, but I have to teach you a lesson. You need to accept the fact that the structure and organization of all history articles cannot be one in the same. 172 21:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I have also stated that the content is really good. My main concern is to make that article accessible to a larger audience. That requires it to be broken up and a summary left in its place (with pointers to the detail). I am in fact agreeing with Alex right now on that talk page - so how can I be alone on this point? I think you have misunderstood what I wanted and acted irrationally to the mention of "news style" (which in fact is not really the right term - a better term is needed). Please join the discussion on the origins talk page. --mav
  • When I put the text in OpenOffice the result was 30 pages long. Books have separate pages, why should this article/booklet not have separate pages?

Best to keep the detail but put it in daughter articles and summarize the whole thing at the parent. The executive summary you talk about is way shorter than what I was thinking of. --mav

    • Then expand it and quit bitching about it. It almost seems as if you're trying to censor content that doesn't correspond to your personal stylistic hangups. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying censor anything - that is yet another unfounded personal attack. I am advocating for that article to be split up. I will go ahead and expand that section and farm off the detail to daughter articles soon. --mav
        • This isn't an attack. You are imposing your own personal preferences on the entire community, conflating them with everyone's preferences and even policy. You probably don't even realize this, but you're going way to far. You're not being helpful in this case. Just accept the fact that this isn't a "Mav style" article. 172 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm being very helpful - right now we are working out how to best break up this article. That's all I really wanted. --mav

It has no lead section that can act as concise encyclopedia article (not in news style), which in addition to being reader unfriendly, makes it very hard to feature this article on the Main Page.

  • A lead section was added since the comments were made. 172 01:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is also horrendously huge (80 KB!), we should not be encouraging such a huge article size by featuring such an unusably long article. It needs to be broken up in discrete digestible bits (NOT another damn series - if you want to write a book then go to Wikibooks!)--mav 06:41, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While I don't care about featured status in and of itself, I'm worried that Mav's sending a message that there is no place for a measure of depth and substance on Wikipedia. If you do not have the time or energy to read an 80KB + article, then there's the timeline toward the bottom of the article, the intro lead in sentence, and the one paragraph overview just for you. But others are looking for substance and an overview of where historians disagree, not a dinky chronology that anyone can find in an almanac.
I'm not alone in this regard. Note, e.g., this comment on the talk page: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks."
See also "Wikipedia for Journalists" By Sree Sreenivasan, Columbia Professor & Poynter Visiting Professor http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=32&aid=62126 . An excerpt reads, "So far, the effort has created numerous reference-quality articles as wide ranging as the Hutton Inquiry, algorithms, social history of the piano, origins of the American Civil War, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. As its quality has improved, news publications have increasingly cited Wikipedia on subjects..." From time to time Wikipedia has to address issues of such complexity. And a "long" article is the only way to give credence to a subject with such a rich historiographical tradition. 172 01:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you can't create a ~20KB summary then I will. I will start with expanding your overview and combining that with the timeline. There are very valid technical and readability reasons to split this monster up. --mav 06:08, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No, you will not create redundant article. The executive summary of the origins article belongs in - and is found in - the parent History of the United States article, which contains the executive summaries of its component daughter articles. If you choose to "expand" the overview by "combining that with the timeline," it will go up on VFD right away.
Nor will you dismember the main body of the text. Although you're caught up in the "the news style mantra", I have cited ample evidence demonstrating that others find the in-depth coverage helpful and readable. Nor can you take issue with the latter. A lead-in sentence, an overview, and a timeline already supplement the origins article for clarity and readability. 172 07:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some facts you deleted from this section (which was talk moved from my talk page):

Just for everyone to note, I removed your spam. Perhaps had you "summarized" your spam in the first place I would've had no need to remove it. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not spam - I moved the talk and deleted it from my talk page. --mav
  • The text alone of the 88KB article takes at least 12+ seconds to download for a 56K connection (assuming that the modem is operating at max speed which means 7KB/second - most 56K modems max out at 4-5 KB a second).
  • Many browsers cannot edit such a long article.
  • Most readers don't have the time to read it (it took me over 50 minutes to read every word).
    • Your point? You have a disdain for serious history on this site, but others don't, and I've cited ample evidence demonstrating that you're in the minority - if not alone. You seem to like almanac-style lists, but I will ensure that readers looking for something else have a choice. You have the "the news style" executive summary and the timeline, which you can feel free to expand. But there's no way in hell that I'm letting you dumb down this article. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not have a disdain for serious history - that is an unfounded personal attack. I'm also not the only person who does not like the length of the article and wishes to break it up. Nowhere have I advocated that any of your prose should be removed. Summarizing the main points and putting the detail in daughter articles is not dumbing down anything - it is making it more useful for a larger number of people who may not want to spend an hour to get the major points. --mav
        • No, you are alone. Alex, the other user concerned with the length, called the article "excellent." His concerns are logistical. In fact, he seems to be on my side on the talk page, in favor of splitting it up into several parts rather than splitting up along the lines of the New Imperialism series. Alex is coming to realize that this article cannot be restructured. As the article proceeds, it relates historians' competing interpretations and the thematic build up to the chronological narrative history. But this organization makes the article impossible to restructure, given the build up from the top of the article to the bottom. As a historian, I knew that this was the only workable organization for an encyclopedic article of this nature on Wikipeida (and I'll defend my reasoning on a more appropriate page). Aside from Alex, the article has received ringing praise from everyone else but you. Why? You're a copyeditor caught up with "news style." The other people who've given us feedback on the article, however, read the article due to a different set of reasons - that is, they were hoping to actually learn something about the origins of the Civil War. I know you mean well, but I have to teach you a lesson. You need to accept the fact that the structure and organization of all history articles cannot be one in the same. 172 21:24, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I have also stated that the content is really good. My main concern is to make that article accessible to a larger audience. That requires it to be broken up and a summary left in its place (with pointers to the detail). I am in fact agreeing with Alex right now on that talk page - so how can I be alone on this point? I think you have misunderstood what I wanted and acted irrationally to the mention of "news style" (which in fact is not really the right term - a better term is needed). Please join the discussion on the origins talk page. --mav
  • When I put the text in OpenOffice the result was 30 pages long. Books have separate pages, why should this article/booklet not have separate pages?

Best to keep the detail but put it in daughter articles and summarize the whole thing at the parent. The executive summary you talk about is way shorter than what I was thinking of. --mav

    • Then expand it and quit bitching about it. It almost seems as if you're trying to censor content that doesn't correspond to your personal stylistic hangups. 172 23:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not trying censor anything - that is yet another unfounded personal attack. I am advocating for that article to be split up. I will go ahead and expand that section and farm off the detail to daughter articles soon. --mav
        • This isn't an attack. You are imposing your own personal preferences on the entire community, conflating them with everyone's preferences and even policy. You probably don't even realize this, but you're going way to far. You're not being helpful in this case. Just accept the fact that this isn't a "Mav style" article. 172 21:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm being very helpful - right now we are working out how to best break up this article. That's all I really wanted. --mav
To get to the heart of my real concern, this is fundamentally an argument over the nature and style of history articles. Mav says, "Not sure what to do with the historiography... I for one don't much care for analysis like that since it reads more like a thesis than encyclopedic prose (I instead prefer to do my own analysis after being presented the facts). Much of it could be condensed - but that can be taken care of later." 1. (I disagree with these premises, but that's irrelevant to the point of my example.) I'm not suggesting that these comments reflect negatively on Mav. I'm just saying that our preferences are related to our backgrounds, and that like-minded users shouldn't be dictating stylistic "polices" for history articles. Their preferences ought to be respected - hence we have a short boiler point summary, an overview, and a timeline on the subject - but not hegemonic. In the end, I can argue that Mav wants to write an almanac as well as he can argue that I belong at "Wikibooks."
Although I'm arguing that policy is on my side with respect to featured status, I'm far more concerned about emphasizing that my argument is fair, irrespective of policy. The opinions of readers satisfied by the article are simply underrepresented on this page. They tend to be readers searching for encyclopedic entries rather than active users (that is, readers who were searching for something and were satisfied with what they had found). Mav was complaining about the fact that an anon nominated the page; but I'd say that a nomination by an anon, who might've found the article through a search engine, said even more about the article.
I've also gotten a number of favorable e-mails from readers without user accounts (i.e. "anons"). Interestingly enough, shorter articles never got me favorable e-mails. I make no apologies for writing the article with someone like the author of the following comments in mind: "I am in my first year teaching American history at the high school level, and I thought this article was incredibly helpful, both to me and to my students. Too often, websites or online encyclopedias provide only a cursory overview of the Civil War, or present the lead-up to the conflict as an inevitable polarisation of 'Slavery v. Anti-Slavery' and 'States Rights v. Federalism'. Certainly these themes are central to the conflict, but they were neither inevitable nor straightforward - nor did they take on the moral overtones people tend to give them today. This article avoids those pitfalls - thanks." 2. I also make no apologies for the timeline, despite my doubts that this will do much to strengthen a reader's understanding of the subject. 172 12:20, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)


same-sex marriage

Heavily biased towards gay rights POV --Uncle Ed 18:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? You're kidding, right? Please provide some evidence for this odd-ball claim. Tannin 19:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that this should not be a featured article, but not because of a heavy bias in any direction. It is a good example of how an article can become bulky by trying to satisfy every side of a debate. The current controversy and constant stream of news articles surrounding this topic garantees that people will argue over every sentence. As long as this situation continues it will be hard to keep it unbiased (or at least get everyone to agree on what unbiased means; see the article's talk page), or complete. -- Kimiko 19:46, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • When did this become a featured article anyway? It wasn't when I started working on it. At the same time, I don't see how it's biased, but --User:Ed Poor has made this claim on the talk page too, also without explaining it. Exploding Boy 01:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no actual reason to remove it Dmn 01:37, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bulldogging

The page should be merged with steer wrestling. Emsworth 23:35, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Political correctness

There is an ongoing neutrality dispute. Emsworth 23:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not saying this article should be here, but I will say that the substance of the dispute seems to be "the article is too long for such a silly topic" which isn't a very convincing objection IMO. I've asked a couple of times for a dialogue relating to the dispute, and there doesn't seem top be much interest. Sam Spade 19:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • There is now some interest and new folks on the page, so maybe the header will get removed in time at least. Sam Spade 06:44, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no longer an ongoing neutrality dispute, you still want the page removed? Sam Spade 03:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the old NPOV dispute was regarding whether the article represented the concept fairly, or mockingly. After significant rewrites, the NPOV dispute header has been removed, and the page has reached a stable form. Keep. --zandperl 00:50, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geologic ages

This articles dont make me especially proud. Not thats incorrect, its just not brilliant: much more can be done. Muriel 08:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Its incredibly short for such a broad topic. Sam Spade 08:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it used to have a big table with all the ages and IIRC more text - all of which has been farmed-off into other articles now. So at one time it was relatively brilliant, but it is no longer. Even if all the stuff I mentioned were still on that page, I would still vote for de-listing - I'm sure that will eventually happen to some entries we now think are brilliant if they don't continue to improve. As Wikipedia matures, we simply expect more. --mav 11:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

President of the United States

Article should make more prominent mention of how presidents get their position in the first place (preferably at the beginning and nicely integrated with the flow of the text). Currently we have to make do with obscure links at the end to U.S. presidential election and U.S. Electoral College. -- Dissident 04:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Done. jengod 01:34, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
This objection seems to have been addressed. What's the procedure for re-listing the article? Can anyone just add it back if there are no further objections? --Minesweeper 22:27, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I beg to make an objection (or rather, objections). Firstly, the Article does not seem to mention that the term limit does not apply in the case of terms lasting less than two years. Furthermore, it does not note that the term limits are relevant in the case of elections; an individual who has previously served two terms may suceed to the Presidency in the case of a vacancy. Secondly, the Article misrepresents the facts relating to the Twelfth Amendment. It states, "Since the ratification of Amendment XII in 1804 clarified the electoral process, the President and Vice President have been elected together as a ticket through the constitutionally mandated U.S. Electoral College." After the ratification of the Amendment, despite the statement in the article to the contrary, the President and Vice President are elected separately - not as a joint ticket. Thirdly, the article states, "The winning candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes." I object because the article does not state that a winning candidate can win in the House of Representatives if there is no majority in the Electoral College. Fourthly, I object to the structure of a sentence: " Thus, in order to raise the salaries of other federal employees, the President's salary had to be raised to avoid surpassing the President." It would seem, reading the sentence, that the President's salary was surpassing his own, and therefore had to be raised - which of course does not appear logical. -- Emsworth 03:33, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

DNA

(This article has been the subject of a dispute which won't be resolved in the short-term due to wikiegos.) The article is incomplete: DNA#More_on_DNA_replication -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Emsworth 22:54, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove it till the edit wars end. It is completely outlandish that we should feature an article that's being protected! A truly great way of showing Wikipedia at its best, no? The situation is so bad that it may be best to take it up on WikiEN-l to ask for immediate action. Dandrake 23:23, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

History of the United States

This article is in the process of being rewritten (or so it seems to me). There are many sections with headings like For details, see the main History of the United States (1964-present) article without any text under that heading. Removed by: DanKeshet

Pumping Lemma

Removed by User:Technopilgrim but no reason given.

I pulled this article from the nominations because I found it pretty much incomprehensible. To put things in perspective I studied honors math under the same professors as taught the Unibomber so I can handle some abstruseness, but this article failed to elucidate this topic for me despite several read-throughs. technopilgrim 02:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Homer Simpson

I can't find any evidence that this has gone through the nomination process, and don't think it is a very good article. --HappyDog 15:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Norse Mythology

This article is confusing, rambling, inconsistent and inaccurate. Haukurth 23:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Glass

Needs better structure, standard TOC placement; recent discussions in some newsgroups are not a proper source to answer scientific questions. Also: pictures! How can we have an article about glass without pictures? —Eloquence 05:42, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia FAQ and WikiProject U.S. States

Neither of these are articles, so how can they be featured articles? Emsworth 23:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. -- Stewart Adcock 20:56, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. --Kaihsu 23:01, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
  • Might it be an idea to feature a project somehow, now and then? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed--Jiang

September 11, 2001 attacks

Ongoing neutrality dispute. -- Emsworth 23:56, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. I also think it contains too many daughter articles, most of poor quality. The article itself is not impressive either. --Jiang 06:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. -- Kaihsu 18:28, 2004 Feb 26 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism

Discussion moved to Talk:Libertarian socialism/Featured article removal

Removed by Sam Spade 07:36, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (due to clear lack of Concensus)

  • Restored by Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC) due to clear lack of consensus to remove it.
    • What is the procedure on removal anyway? Do we require consensus to remove, or do we only require a lack of consensus to keep? If the latter, then Sam was right to remove it. OTOH, if the latter, then Sam could have removed it before the discussion, which certainly doesn't seem to be the procedure. I will ask for discussion on this talk page. -- Toby Bartels 03:03, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly there is no concensus either to keep or remove this. From what I see on the talk, that means it must be removed. I am not going to edit war however, so would you be so kind as to remove it, Toby? Sam Spade 01:03, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • From what I can see on the talk, this is still a point under contention. Since I disagree with your position there, I'm not going to remove it. However, if you were to remove it, that would not (IMO) be anything close to engaging in an edit war on your part. Your position does seem to have more support than mine, and I would not restore it if you removed it. I do applaud your desire to avoid edit wars, but I don't think that it applies in this case. -- Toby Bartels 21:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Since some insist on removing the neutrality dispute, and Toby seems forgiving, I am removing it. Sam Spade 07:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates&oldid=2909648"