If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either strike or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in
Justin Bieber article prevails. Per
WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --
George Ho (
talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ( User talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
In this community reassessment, voting is not allowed because this discussion is not a vote. In other words, "delist", "keep", or any other is not allowed here; moreover, (non-)administrator is allowed to close as either "kept" or "delisted" with rationale. If you make one vote, try to either strike or take it out. You are welcome to give your opinions about this article's Good Article status and GA qualifications. As for this article, FA nomination was attempted but failed. Also, this article is nominated for deletion. As I am reading this article, there are too many references that are not easy to read, and there are too many numbers. I sense recentism weighing in on this article, and excessive material of what may already have been included in
Justin Bieber article prevails. Per
WP:IINFO, this article lacks any significant viewpoint on Bieber and his Twitter activities. --
George Ho (
talk) 07:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the point of bringing this here while the AFD is still ongoing. If it gets deleted or merged then a reassessment is not needed. I would suggest that participants wait for the result of the AFD before deciding on what this article should be assessed as. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I am concerned about the stability of the article at the moment, which may be exacerbated by public interest in the article's editorial process. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
So how about we close this discussion now, and then reconsider after any AFD closure, or rewriting has completed. As it stands this discussion will achieve nothing much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are comments from just reading the article, I didn't go in depth, just checked it quickly against WP:WIAGA. Hope it helps! – Plarem ( User talk) 09:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)