Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empire of Atlantium

Empire of Atlantium
A lot of info for a nation that is only an apartment. --Galena 04:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as this article has been a source of ongoing edit wars in the past, which will likely continue into the future. Plus, the conflicts have really detracted from the quality of the article. It just doesn't seem as fleshed out in the other aspects as it could be because of the sticky points of the edit wars. Gregb 04:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Gregb. External references and possibly a relevant photograph would also be beneficial to rounding out the article.--Gene_poole 04:32, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Firstly, what Gregb said. Secondly, it's a little ridiculous to be nominating this for FAC after it narrowly escaped VFD less than a month ago. Ambi 07:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It would be a great coup to get an article featured having survived vfd. I don't think this one cuts it unfortunately. I wonder if List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever might make it with some more improvements - it is more prose than list these days and moving towards being comprehensive. Pcb21| Pete 11:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would be too controversial. Average Earthman 15:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. child play. I'd vote "delete" on VfD. -Pedro 16:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mediocre article on a fairly non-notable thing. I'd vote "keep" on VfD, but this nomination on FAC is taking the piss. GWO 16:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support as a protest. It was ridiculous that this article was submitted to VfD three times and disgusting when it was deleted without concensus. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 14:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It was deleted with 60% support. It was undeleted without even a bare majority (67% said keep deleted). Gzornenplatz 23:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty gobsmacked that you could say such a thing. I count 11 votes to keep deleted v 16 votes to undelete. As for Dmn are your really saying that the reason you support this as a featured article is because you feel it has been treated unfairly in the past? Because if you do than I propose that your vote be ignored. Theresa Knott  (The token star) 23:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * At the time maveric undeleted it, the vote was 8 for keep deleted to 4 for undelete. Thereafter, the vote was obsolete. People could see that their vote to keep deleted is being ignored anyway. Gzornenplatz 23:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * That argument goes both ways. It could just as easily be argued that since it had already been undeleted there was no point in voting to undelete. Theresa Knott (The token star) 23:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I still think the vote was biased by maveric's undeletion. From a simple statistical view, it seems unlikely to be a coincidence that the votes before maveric's action were 8-4 for "keep deleted", and the votes after his action were 12-3 for "undelete". Gzornenplatz 09:58, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * And perhaps that simply reflected the sum total of those with axes to grind concerning the article jumping in early. All the expected names are there, after all. --Gene_poole 23:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm protesting the repeated listing of this page on VfD and I'm protesting when an administrator decided 29-19 constituted a consensus. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 00:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I know why you are protesting :-) My point is that you should not protest in this way. I protested by arguing the case on votes for undeletion - as did several others. Other sutable places are the village pump, or on the talk page of votes for deletion on or vamp willow's talk page. But protesting by voting for a page to be featured is not on (of course if you actually think it is up to featured article standards that's a different matter). Theresa Knott (The token star) 00:13, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Articles which are deleted inappropriately can be undeleted without any vote at all. If it really makes a difference, this protest vote should be ignored. But it won't.  So who cares? anthony (see warning) 01:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons that others have stated -- Cabalamat 20:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - While I don't think it should be deleted, I don't think it should be featured either. --mav 03:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless we want to make Wiki look like a joke.  Samboy 01:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This really isn't an actionable objection, unless you're referring to the state of the article instead of its subject matter. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)