Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Vanilla Ninja

Vanilla Ninja

 * Article is still a featured article.

I submit this article because it is incredibly poorly formatted, and lacks any real sources. I made an attempt to fix the formatting problems in the article, and they were quickly reverted as "necessary", so as it stands the introparagraph is a long list of bolded names and dates of birth. Second, while there are references, I cannot believe that they are the source of the actual information in this article. The sources, if they mention Vanilla Ninja at all, do so only very briefly. A request I made for more and better references on the talk page remains completely unanswered and ignored. This is in no way a featured article. Thanks! Páll 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. There are numbered external links in this article, which go against our trusted Manual of Style. Also, in my opinion, this is a little too short for a featured article. Denelson83 14:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should not be considered for removal b/c it was recently promoted to featured article status. (see rule at top of FA removal page, which says, "Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period.") As a result, I believe the issues with the article listed above should be addressed on the article's talk page.--Alabamaboy 14:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While normally I would agree with that, I have brought up several issues on the talk page, none of which have received a single reply. Páll 03:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The nomination was far from ideal. There were several very simple and reasonable objections which were simply ignored with little or no explanation as to why. Raul has, in fact, still not explained why he so thoroughly ignored actionable objections. People behind an FA need to be deferential to those who take time to review their work and pay proper respect when reasonable objections are brought up. This includes matters that could be viewed as opinion (layout and such) and compromises, not stubborn argumentation, should be offered. If these are simply ignored and more time is spent arguing against them rather than amending them, its status as an FA should be rightfully questioned. A lot of people seem to have the notion that an FA is an unalienable right anyone is entitled to after a certain amount of time spent on an article. /Peter Isotalo 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although my current dis-illusions with Wikipedia mean I don't actually care. Hedley 18:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a perfectly good article to me. I don't see anything so wrong with this that it needs removing from the list of featured articles. There are much worse ones on the list. If there are any concerns they can be brought up on the talk page. This was only recently featured and most people who commented on the nomination thought it was worthy of being featured. Nothing drastic has happened to the quality of the article since then. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. A featured article should be comprehensive, and this article says next to nothing about the music this group makes. Monicasdude 02:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Alabamaboy. Follow the rules. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * If anything, the "rules" were broken when the article was featured despite several actionable objections. /Peter Isotalo 10:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Which have now been fixed. I don't see your point. Hedley 15:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hedley, tell me where each reference goes and I can fix the references to the MoS format of footnotes. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any rule stating that type of references is needed. I think the references are fine as they are. Hedley 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, putting this up for removal for lack of good academic references is obtuse, it's an article on pop culture. I've yet to see a university with a good Estonian Pop Studies course. Sure, there's some formatting cleanup that could be done, but that's sofixit territory. --zippedmartin 19:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. FARC should only be used for articles which are in a terrible state since they were first promoted (eg. POV war, poor structure), but not because the footnotes aren't formatted correctly. This article was only featured quite recently, and so shouldn't be here at all, never mind the fact there is no real reason to remove the FA status. Unless something drastically changes, this is a first-rate source on an obscure band with great depths of information included. Harro5 09:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that there are sufficient references for everything in the article; Those that have read it and are familiar with the topic can see that. Those that have glanced should not be commenting on the references. Furthermore, some references aren't linked per opinion given that references in German and other languages are not suitable for use on an English language encyclopedia. Finally, those German references were replaced as well as possible by the English language ones given. Hedley 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)