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.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)
 * 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)

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)