![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Lady Gaga Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Lady Gaga Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Merge to Lady Gaga. |
![]() | Lady Gaga on Twitter was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 5, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
@ladygaga (pictured) and
@justinbieber are, respectively, the first and second most-followed celebrities on Twitter? |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this page really relevant? I suggest, either delete it or merge it with another page. It has no strength or significance alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSudhanva ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just because it passes "notability" criteria and has sources doesn't mean it should exist. You should spend some time reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Especially the wikipedia is not a diary and promotional tool for celebrities. This article and the Justin Bieber article are useless and undermine the credibility of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Outside of a few obnoxious editors, I doubt anybody cares about a huge essay on Justin Biebers and Lady Gaga's twitter, and there is no reason it requires a wikipedia article. Also, talk pages ARE GOOD PLACES TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF AN ARTICLE. Your condescending attitude is detrimental to discussion. 24.235.129.212 ( talk) 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Clear misinformation, Gaga has nowhere near 40M followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.115.236 ( talk) 09:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see this page as a hate page towards Justin Bieber's fans, mocking them because their idol is not the most followed on twitter. Although I am a little monster, I do strongly believe that this page was created just to rub it in their face. I think it would work however if you had, say, a page for each of the top 10 followed people on twitter. To me this article is irrelevant and I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.69.80 ( talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because passes wp:gng.-- LauraHale ( talk)
Perhaps you missed this part of wp:gng
What wikipedia is not: a collection of articles about celebrity twitter accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.123.41 ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Plarem ( talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Please contact me – Plarem ( User talk) on my talk page if you need anything. Well done on writing a short, but good article. Needs to be touched up though... – Plarem ( User talk) 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
FAIL
Fail
- The article has been failed for the reasons above. Feel free to renominate it after the issues raised here and on the talk page have been addressed. – Plarem (
User
talk)
18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This section is unsurprising and trivial, it's not helping anything. Insomesia ( talk) 09:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a published opinion about Lady Gaga's use of Twitter in general. So far, I've read what I see: just events about what Lady Gaga did. Wikipedia is neither a film, a book, an essay, nor anything. It's an internet encyclopedia. This article is of a "work" by Gaga. How can an article about a "notable" topic explain impact or derivatives? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Question about the lead sentence:
Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) is Twitter's most popular user, a position she has held for a long time.
The dubious statement about "most popular user" should be explained. While I understand what it means (number of followers), it should say that. As far as "a position she has held for a long time", that is a pretty vague statement. What is a long time? The account is for years old, how can it be the most popular for a long time if it's only four years old. A long time compared to what? -- kelapstick( bainuu) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • Lady Gaga Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Lady Gaga Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was Merge to Lady Gaga. |
![]() | Lady Gaga on Twitter was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
May 5, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
@ladygaga (pictured) and
@justinbieber are, respectively, the first and second most-followed celebrities on Twitter? |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this page really relevant? I suggest, either delete it or merge it with another page. It has no strength or significance alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSudhanva ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Just because it passes "notability" criteria and has sources doesn't mean it should exist. You should spend some time reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Especially the wikipedia is not a diary and promotional tool for celebrities. This article and the Justin Bieber article are useless and undermine the credibility of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Outside of a few obnoxious editors, I doubt anybody cares about a huge essay on Justin Biebers and Lady Gaga's twitter, and there is no reason it requires a wikipedia article. Also, talk pages ARE GOOD PLACES TO DISCUSS THE MERITS OF AN ARTICLE. Your condescending attitude is detrimental to discussion. 24.235.129.212 ( talk) 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Clear misinformation, Gaga has nowhere near 40M followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.115.236 ( talk) 09:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see this page as a hate page towards Justin Bieber's fans, mocking them because their idol is not the most followed on twitter. Although I am a little monster, I do strongly believe that this page was created just to rub it in their face. I think it would work however if you had, say, a page for each of the top 10 followed people on twitter. To me this article is irrelevant and I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.69.80 ( talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because passes wp:gng.-- LauraHale ( talk)
Perhaps you missed this part of wp:gng
What wikipedia is not: a collection of articles about celebrity twitter accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.42.123.41 ( talk) 17:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Plarem ( talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
A good article is—
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The reviewer has no notes here. |
![]() |
Please contact me – Plarem ( User talk) on my talk page if you need anything. Well done on writing a short, but good article. Needs to be touched up though... – Plarem ( User talk) 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
FAIL
Fail
- The article has been failed for the reasons above. Feel free to renominate it after the issues raised here and on the talk page have been addressed. – Plarem (
User
talk)
18:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
This section is unsurprising and trivial, it's not helping anything. Insomesia ( talk) 09:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
This article needs a published opinion about Lady Gaga's use of Twitter in general. So far, I've read what I see: just events about what Lady Gaga did. Wikipedia is neither a film, a book, an essay, nor anything. It's an internet encyclopedia. This article is of a "work" by Gaga. How can an article about a "notable" topic explain impact or derivatives? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Question about the lead sentence:
Lady Gaga (@ladygaga) is Twitter's most popular user, a position she has held for a long time.
The dubious statement about "most popular user" should be explained. While I understand what it means (number of followers), it should say that. As far as "a position she has held for a long time", that is a pretty vague statement. What is a long time? The account is for years old, how can it be the most popular for a long time if it's only four years old. A long time compared to what? -- kelapstick( bainuu) 09:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)