Talk:Poker Face (song)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has become the center of an edit war between two editors, thus no longer meets GA criterion 5 for stability. Vicenarian (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Edit war is being done under a silly pretext. User:Smanu is deleting information from the article and replacing with unreliable sources and information which doesnot support verifiability. When reverted, this war started. A discussion has been opened on the talk page. I'm sure a consensus will be reached among other editors regarding why is he vandalising the page. He has already been pointed out about this, but instead chose to say such comments as I'm right and you're wrong, bad-mouthing my name etc etc. Looking at his contributions, it is known that he engages in these kind of edit wars in other articles also. It seems like he doesnot like anybody else to revert his fancrufty changes. I believe the article's status should be maintained. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell that I found that the liner notes from the album can be used as a reference, hence using that will not fail WP:VERIFIABILITY and both the versions of the lyrics have been incorporated in the article. Now there won't be any further edit wars hence the status can be retained. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: vandalism and disruptive editing are not the sole criteria for judging an article's stability, otherwise featured articles such as Barack Obama—which is currently on Article probation —would automatically be delisted. Point of fact, the stability requirement is meant for the time period prior to GAN and specifically during the nomination process. If we were to reassess every GA and FA that has ever been subject to edit warring, wikipedia would implode. I suspect the nominator is working in good faith, but to be honest, this nomination for reassessment is a bit ridiculous. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that vandalism isn't cause for delisting, but without taking sides, I'm not entirely certain that is what is going on here. I always assume good faith when it comes to edit conflicts. Vicenarian (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, of course I'm working in good faith, as I know we all are. Please, let's keep it cool. The criteria for delisting a good article are when an article no longer meets the criteria for a good article, one of which is stability; that's why I nominated this article for delisting. But of course, if the consensus here is against delisting, then when the seven day comment period is up, I'll close this out and keep the article listed. No harm, no foul. Can't we all just get along? Vicenarian (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GAR = Keep

Actually, instead of keeping this open, I'm going to go ahead and close it out, as there is strong opposition to delisting and I don't think a community reassessment is warranted. The GA listing will be kept. Vicenarian (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)