Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crispy Gamer/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2017 [1].

Crispy Gamer

Nominator(s): ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Give every credit to GamerPro64. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm the person who nominated the article for GA to begin with. I did not tell the nominator for this FAC to nominate it. He didn't even consult me about this nomination. I do not like that someone else is trying to claim credit for an article I worked on. I personally do not think it would survive an FAC. That being said, I would like to see this FAC continued just to see if it would pass the nomination. At the same time, I want Gamingforfun to not take credit in the event it does pass. I find this lack of communication to be unprofessional and rude. GamerPro64 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that I was being rude, as I was not trying to steal GamerPro64's credit by lying. I had no clue that I was to communicate. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: and @Other FAC coordinators: May I please remove the above two comments about an argument, as I find it offensive and it makes me seem like the bad guy? I just want to drop it. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From FAC: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." If you are not going to take the time to read the full page, you probably shouldn't be worried about FACs. -- ferret (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on procedure. The nominator has made only about 3% of the edits and less than 1% of the text content, see here. It's clear that the nomination does not have the support of those who wrote most of the text, and there must be doubts as to whether the nominator is equiped to address the issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Largely the same reasoning as Jimfbleak. Nominator is not a significant contributor and did not consult significant contributors. Evidently this, along with the nominator's previous FAC nomination, demonstrates that they have not bothered to read WP:FAC and do not understand what makes a Featured Article. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I am closing this, mainly for procedural reasons given the two early opposes on these grounds. To quote from the FAC instructions: "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Additionally, I don't want a precedent setting here. The primary contributor says that they would like the nomination to progress to see what happens, but that isn't really how FAC works. When it is considered to meet the FA criteria, it should be nominated; in any case, it cannot be renominated until the usual two weeks have passed. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.