Talk:Lady Gaga on Twitter

Request for deletion: Is this page really relevant?

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)

It has reliable sources + passes WP:GNG + and is therefore notable. I'll also note, that this is not where you ask for the article to be deleted/merged (rather here) - this talk page is for improving the article. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 05:53, 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.wiki.x.io/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)

And calling editor's - esp. good-faithed editors "obnoxious", comes under the scope of No Personal Attacks. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you believe this article is out of scope then you are free to propose it for deletion at articles for deletion. You may find other editors agree with you. QU ^TalkQu 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I was initially surprised to see it exists, but having read it I'm convinced it passes the notability test. Obviously, the vast majority of Twitter feeds aren't independently notable, but as @ladygaga is the single most followed Twitter user, I think she's a justifiable exception. (Similarly, the vast majority of YouTube accounts aren't notable, but those that are should have articles: see Category:YouTube.) The sources in this article demonstrate that her Twitter use actually has been the subject of considerable coverage itself. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted the image

Clear misinformation, Gaga has nowhere near 40M followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.115.236 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

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)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because passes wp:gng.--LauraHale (talk)

I've deleted the speedy note. Since it was added as the first edit of a brand new account, I suspect that it was done by a sock. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to try to remove but noticed it was gone. iPhone editing is a pain. Also, I suspect a sock too. --LauraHale (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part of wp:gng

• "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5]

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lady Gaga on Twitter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Plarem (talk · contribs) 15:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	A well written article, had to correct just one typo.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Please expand the lead. The lead has to summarise the article. The current lead summarises it OK, please just have a mention about 'Twitter content' and 'Controversy and mishaps'. A bit about each.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References needed. Example: "The fan campaign is described by the Chicago Tribune as a "jihad against Gaga's Twitter dominance."" That was just an example... More examples: "Some people on Twitter thought this comment was insensitive to people with eating disorders and called her out on this." "Other people on Twitter thought the whole thing was blown out of proportion and Tweeted their support of the singer." "The Twitter controversy extended to the blogosphere with National Eating Disorders Association making a blog post to weigh in on the situation."	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The section 'Fan and celebrity interaction' is unworthy of inclusion and should be removed... It is about nothing...	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
As much as I hate Justina Beaver, I suppose that the section 'Twitter followers' is half-devoted to the fact that Lady Gaga has more followers than Justina Beaver... It has no mention of the third-highest follower count on Twitter, nor does it have any mention of any other celebrities than Lady Gaga, Justina Beaver and Britney Spears. This comparing should be merged into 'Justin Bieber rivalry'	Fail

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	In light of the claims about prose quality and NPOV issues posted in the talk page, the posting of the 'too few opinions' banner and for little edits to the article relating to the review comments during the GA review, I have decided to fail this article. Please feel free to renominate it after the issues have been addressed.

Discussion

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)

Fan and celebrity interaction section should go

This section is unsurprising and trivial, it's not helping anything.Insomesia (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs balance

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)

I agree. – Plarem ^{(User talk)} 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence

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)