The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 9:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) [1].
This article has a long-standing lack of citations for significant portions. -- Beland ( talk) 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
The featured article removal coordinators [...] determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.I am not sure if there is a substantial difference, from the point of view of finding consensus in community discussions, between saying "I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards" and saying "Delist I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards". Is it possible the guideline you are quoting was written to apply to reviews of more recent FAs, where the notable gap between the standards of 2006 and the standards of 2020 is not also in play? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC) reply
I may return to have a look at the prose. Eisfbnore (会話) 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Okay to Keep, @ DrKay: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Nihonjoe: I've added a couple more cn tags. I also note that the formatting of citations and references is quite inconsistent - some cleanup needed there before this can be kept. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC) reply