RationalWiki:Articles for demotion/2012 apocalypse

2012 apocalypse | Result: Status quo[edit]

I know length in of itself shouldn't be a factor of singling good articles, but if you compare this article to several other gold, this just doesn't have the breadth of content. You can, however, argue that neither does Autism omnibus trial, a gold article, but that could be reconsidered as it was put for gold in 2008 and standards have likely changed since then; it's also tagged with an improvement comment on the talk page, which I think should disqualify it for gold, as gold articles should not have any improvement tags. There's also Baraminology which also isn't very long for a gold article. The citations aren't formatted either. Nevertheless I can see this as a cover story. Try comparing this and Wikipedia's variant and see where we fall short or where we do better than Wikipedia. We don't want to be like Wikipedia-lite. --It's-a me, 🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not particularly relevant these days. Might have been missional ten years ago, but no one is still running around claiming the world will end in 2012. CorruptUser 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It's good as is. Bongolian (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed with above. I do think it's a big enough phenomenon to warrant being a cover story though (with the caveat that I haven't read the requirements for cover story status yet). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)