Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Not The Nine O'Clock News

Not The Nine O'Clock News

 * Article is still a featured article.

Again, almost entirely lists, almost no lead section and no references. - Taxman 16:28, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove - clearly the worst of the three, and not up to scratch. I have posted some comments on the talk page: it is not comprehensive either. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at addressing the issues and won't vote now. I'm not sure what to do about the &quot;list" point: would the "Memorable sketches" work any better if it was turned into prose? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There's not enough context in many of the sketches to understand why they are funny, but I'm not sure that's even possible. The reall problem isn't that section anymore, its the disjointed nature and resulting complete lack of flow in the 'Commercial releases' section. I can't think how to fix it, but it is what really makes the article look bad. If that is shaped up a bit and another resource is added as a reference, and both are formatted properly, I'd make my nomination a keep vote I guess. - Taxman 15:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tidied that section up a bit, turning it into some kind of prose, but the Video and DVD bit in particular needs some info on how well they did, etc; and some info on them from people who actually own them. - SoM 16:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support removal &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove Keep - SoM 20:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) 20:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove And besides, it doesn't have sources.. Thechamelon 23:06, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove very lightweight. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Keep after this rewrite. Filiocht | Blarneyman 14:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. A model article, if not quite a typical FA.  +sj  +  05:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)