Speedy Keep, this clearly isn't the most carefully thought out removal nomination, since you have listed this as a "featured list" rather than a featured article. Frankly, that coupled with the somewhat derisory length of the reasoning given for removal ("lacks references") means that I would propose this discussion be closed as soon as as possible. There are sixty individual references listed in the article. Why not list any concerns or problems you've found on the talk page rather than jump right in with a removal notice. Bobtalk22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you either close this discussion or do something with it (i.e. link it properly) please, TBrandley? Obviously as an involved editor I can't, but this is just going to sit here unless you do something with it. Bobtalk16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep, this clearly isn't the most carefully thought out removal nomination, since you have listed this as a "featured list" rather than a featured article. Frankly, that coupled with the somewhat derisory length of the reasoning given for removal ("lacks references") means that I would propose this discussion be closed as soon as as possible. There are sixty individual references listed in the article. Why not list any concerns or problems you've found on the talk page rather than jump right in with a removal notice. Bobtalk22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you either close this discussion or do something with it (i.e. link it properly) please, TBrandley? Obviously as an involved editor I can't, but this is just going to sit here unless you do something with it. Bobtalk16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply