Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Contigo Quiero Estar/1

Contigo Quiero Estar[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Article clearly fails the broadness criterion (only a single critical mention and little else); as noted by both commenters, the article is quite short, and although this is not strictly a GA criterion, the notability is frankly dubious (it clearly fails WP:NSONGS). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELISTED

Article clearly fails the broadness criterion, and has been stripped of much of the material that was there when it was made a GA in 2012. It is also fails WP:NSONGS in terms of notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per this discussion I made earlier, I would like to redirect this article to the parent album but it would need the consensus from the community to delist this article from GA status first. Best – jona ✉ 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although, the article is quite short, and only had a few, slight errors, I see no need to delist this article. "Always Mine" – yes, I agree with that one. I'm a bit "iffy" when it comes to "Captive Heart", but this one is pretty solid. I took the liberty of fixing the "slight" errors I previously mentioned, and nothing else seems to jump out at me when I read the article. I fixed the format of the single in the "Track listing" box, changed the title from "Track listings" to "Track listing", and reduced the size of the "References" section so it is more condensed. Those are my thoughts. Carbrera (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist -- I am neutral on the question of a redirect, but the article is quite short and I'm not sure it "represents Wikipedia's best work". The subject seems trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.