Mahatma Gandhi

Article is still a featured article.

Very POV article. Ignores almost anything that might even be perceived as negative that could be said about Gandhi. See The Gandhi Nobody Knowsand Talk:Mahatma Gandhi for some of the information not delt with in the article.--Heathcliff 01:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please cite specifics when nominating articles here. If you think the article is POV, please cite which areas need attention. You yourself say that you need to do a substantial amount of research before alterations, so nominating it here without doing your research and claiming POV is weird. kaal 23:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just feel that the article as it is right now does not do justice either to the Mahatma himself or the status of being a "Featured article". It could be much wider and deeper. The article on Ayn Rand, for example, is richer in content and references.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Could do with a photo or two to add eye-catching interest, but other than that there is no reason to remove the status of FA from this important page. Harro5 10:11, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be a (rather superficial) content dispute and nominating the article here is not the way to build consensus. The extlink given by Heathcliff is a critique of the 1982 film, not so much of Gandhi himself; additionally, our article itself doesn't strike me as being uncritical or overly enthusiastic. — mark ✎ 00:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are criticisms and negative viewpoints scattered throughout the article. Maybe it could do with a few more, but this doesnt warrant featured-article removal. And most of the stuff in the Grenier article are either scurrilous personal allegations or facts twisted out of context. Deepak 20:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Okay I supported the original FA nomination in the first place so this is biased, but I am not really seeing enough problems to remove it. JuntungWu 05:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 06:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)