Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad/archive1

Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad
Withdrawn -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I'm nominating this article for featured article because, although some FAC purists might consider it rather brief, it is comprehensive and fulfills all the other FA criteria in spades. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 10:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're joking, given the day, but right now it is obviously too short, and uses only one source (Baha himself). There is much more we can add to it. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you think you're being a bit picky? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oh overlord, I cannot comply despite my instinctive compulsion to be meekly subserviant to your infallible position as coordinator. Forgive me! Do not banish me from the utopia of MILHIST! ;-) :-D SoLando (Talk) 12:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, does this encompass all time zones? :-D SoLando (Talk) 12:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sotto voce Yes.)-- R OGER D AVIES  talk


 * Comment I lol'd like this. :) María ( habla con migo ) 12:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bagh! You could try to take it a bit seriously :) -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like your attitude. Don't you know that every comment at FAC is to be acknowledged and pandered to, no matter how silly or minor?  BTW, I see a misuse of WP:DASH, which is not acceptable.  If you fix it I'll surely find something else to nitpick for no reason at all other than to be a nuisance and to make you dread checking your watchlist.  Therefore, I have no other choice but to Oppose ad infinitum. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:This one is tricky. I suspect it to be one of those 'make believe' its a hoax but actually isn't. The least I can do is to tag it rather than  . Anyways my comment sucks as its not funny considering the occasion. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: You nominated it on the wrong day. I asked some more knowledgeable editors for their opinions. This seems very much a case where we decide whether there should be any article length criteria for FA. Unfortunately some editors act simply stupid. I suggest to discount any vote without a proper argument. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Psst: Actually, Roger nominated it on exactly the correct day. María ( habla con migo ) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, an April Fool's joke turns out to be completely un-funny. Imagine all the time we could have spent actually working on the article! Can we please delete this now? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but Wikipedians are often distracted from the object of expanding the encyclopedia by arguments and disputes. This is at least refresingly placid, eh? :-) SoLando (Talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have spent much of the day working on improving it, just not online. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Suppose - Should be immediately be given the rank of "Featured Stub". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support because it counters systemic bias - Roger, I am overwhelmed. So rarely does any editor bother to take the time to thoroughly research non-Western topics, particularly old non-Western topics. This wonderfully comprehensive article, surely one of Wikipedia's best on an Islamic subject, is a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia's cadre of FAs. Thank you! Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support only if Roger agrees to state that this is his very best work :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not enough fair use images. Definitely needs some Care Bears and explosions from the Die Hard series to spice it up.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)