Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Poetry/archive1

Poetry

 * Article is still a featured article.

In its current form with big lists etc, it doesn't meet featured criteria. -- Sundar 08:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * What big lists? There's one short one and one fairly short one (considering the subject).  Could you expand on the etc? Mark1 09:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poetry appears to be a very subjective list, which can never be comprehensive and accurate. -- Sundar 09:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have restored much of what was the original FAC and removed the lists in question. Sundar, would doing this not have been better than listing here? Filiocht 09:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC). Keep, BTW. Filiocht 09:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is in a much better form now. I don't know if I can withdraw this nomination given that there is a pro-removal vote here. -- Sundar 10:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is too broad a topic ever to be a featured example. --Wetman 10:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no topic restrictions on what can be an FA, as far as I know. Filiocht 10:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is of course correct. It is simply a matter of whether the article meets the criteria. Topic is not one of them. Sundar, do you have some criteria you feel it fails to meet? - Taxman 21:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I had comprehensiveness and lack of a picture in mind. But am not too particular about getting the status removed. -- Sundar 04:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well one could certainly challenge this article on comprehensiveness. It is certainly not comprehensive in any normal sense of the word. Nor could any article with so broad a topic be so, and still be a reasonable size. Maybe this is the crux of Wetman's objection. However I think this is more a problem with our "comprehensiveness" criterion, than a problem with this article. I think it is comprehensive "enough". Keep. Paul August &#9742; 23:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to this as a removal criteria. I don't agree with this statement! We can always use summary form and split off the article into other subarticles. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Mark1 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. Poor layout; relevant topics that should be incorporated in the text are dumped as lists at the end of the article. Far too short. Fredrik | talk 09:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, in reverted FA form. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree this article is not the best it could be, and it definitely needs some work. I've nominated it for the newly formed (experimental) Article Improvement Drive. Come vote if you are interested.--Dmcdevit 18:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * remove. too many lists, poor layout, the topic is very broad, and thus the article is less than comprehensive.Dinopup 18:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)