Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Oxyrhynchus

Oxyrhynchus

 * Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive; the recent major discoveries have made this out of date. Remove. Neutralitytalk 21:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks fairly comprehensive to me and probably includes just about as much as it can about the recent discoveries at the moment.  Wikipedia is better than a paper encyclopedia at keeping things up to date, but that does not mean that it fails to be comprehensive if it does not have information on what happened last week. Indrian 21:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. No references. I'm going to stick with that stand on principal even if others disagree. It's been long enough. - Taxman 22:51, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep agree with Indrian. Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep its good enough. Thechamelon 11:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove Everyking 12:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Sole reference, not comprehensive: e.g., in the "Finds at Oxyrhynchus" section no mention by what expedition, and when these texts etc. were found. 213.115.184.126 19:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move the link to the online news article on the recent finds in the reference section. It's as up-to-date as it'll ever get. Mgm|(talk) 07:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is good enough for me. Information on the recent discoveries will be added by-the-by I am sure. Rje 01:00, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No Vote. If it had references, I would vote 'keep'. Decius 09:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As with the Powell discussion above, the original author is Adam Carr. Pcb21| Pete 10:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. I agree with Taxman, should have references. Paul August &#9742; 03:36, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and find references. This is not only a featuread article it is a jewel. -Pedro 02:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)