" 

  
 == FA candidate == 
 This article was proposed for FA status back in 2004, but only seems to have missed it fairly narrowly.  Is it worth re-examining the issue?    
 :I currently have a peer review request for this article. Since the FA nomination was ten years ago, it would be worthwhile to solicit outside feedback and get it to GA status before going to FA.    
 ::I've nominated this article for GA status, and if successful will nominate it for FA immediately afterwards. The peer review helped the article some, but I feel that the GA review will also clean up the article considerably and help the chances of a successful FA nomination. I'd like to have this article be Today's Featured Article on August 17, 2015 (the 100th anniversary of Frank's hanging) if it gets to FA.    
 :::Given the huge amount of properly resourced facts and evidence concerning this case that was capriciously and unjustifiably removed from this article in November 2013, which merely served to preserve this article as a POV whitewashing of Leo Frank, renders any nomination for GA status as nothing less than ridiculous.   
 ::::Just for the record, [here is the link] to the version mentioned by the IP above. At the time, this article was 130 KB long and the edits were promptly reverted by other editors.    
 :::::That Wikipedia articles have no set size restrictions, the above argument is merely a nonsensical attempt to justify the unjustifiable removal of pertinent, well sourced, and relevant information crucial to a reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand. The obfuscation of such relevant, and properly sourced facts was, and continues to be a disgraceful act of POV vandalism, and nothing more.   
 ::::::No, that's a ridiculous level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems. Wikipedia:Article size suggests 50k as a good cut-off point. If there were a reason to go into that level of detail, which there is not, this info would hypothetically need to be split-off into multiple articles. That version is also overflowing with WP:PEACOCK terms and other WP:NPOV problems.    
 :::::::Yet one more attempt to justify the unjustified and blatant POV vandalism complained of before... and just for the record, the correct link to the material  [is HERE.] And no claim as to any ""level of detail that makes the article difficult to navigate, and slow to load on older systems"" is sufficient to excuse the wholesale removal of properly referenced, relevant, and pertinent facts which, as stated before, are crucial to any reader's thorough understanding of the subject at hand... no matter what kind of system they use. It was, is, and shall remain a blatant act of POV vandalism until it is recognized as such, and subsequently corrected.   
 :::::::::You're obviously a POV warrior with a racist agenda to turn the Leo Frank article on Wikipedia into a longwinded-diatribe by elaborating about every minute forensic detail of Mary Phagan's murder and events in the aftermath. You also seem eager to insert all the evidence proving Leo Frank's guilt where ever you can in the article, basically going against the prevailing consensus of historians that Leo Frank was innocent and framed because of Antisemitism. My advice for you is to goosestep somewhere else with your Antisemitism, like metapedia.org where they would be more than happy to have you create hundreds of excruciatingly meticulous individualized pages expounding about every single twist and turn of the Frank-Phagan affair. And then you can become an author by writing a 4,000 page loquacious telephonebook size tome called, 'The 12-Volume Unauthorized Biography of Little Mary Phagan'! But Wikipedia seeks to keep its articles under 50K and without POV pushing.    
 Hello [