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#Famous Poets 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 ☎ 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) Wikipedia: 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)