Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Merge and redirect. WP:N clashes with WP:NOT here (and if not the letter of WP:NOT, then the spirit of it), and while WP:NOT trumps WP:N in general, there is nothing in WP:NOT that makes this topic unsuitable for at least a paragraph in the main Ashton Kutchner article. I will redirect the article but keep the history, so that people can merge whatever is important enough to be noted in the main article. Fram (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a procedural relist that resulted from the outcome of this DRV. The previous AfD can be found here. Per the DRV, "participants are reminded to comment clearly on the reasons behind their policy and guideline based arguments (and/or why the arguments of other participants are not based upon policies and guidelines)." Concerns about—and defenses of—the article can be found in the DRV and previous AfD. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Baring exceptional circumstances, this discussion should not be relisted beyond the conventional discussion length. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete (again) per WP:NOT. Or perhaps more accurately, WP:NOTTRIVIA.  This article provides excessive, tedious detail on what is ultimately an incredibly minor aspect of Ashton Kutcher's public presence. The article itself is nothing but a collection of irrelevant trivia, random statements with little to no context or explanation of what makes the statements notable, important or of historical value. Thus, much of the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Ultimately, this entire article could be condensed into a single paragraph in Kutcher's main article with absolutely nothing of value lost.  And now, let the drama continue...Resolute 01:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge the process of condensing article into a single paragraph in another article is known as selective merge, isn't it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it takes this much effort to get such an obviously dumb and inappropriate article deleted, the article should be kept as a badge of shame. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as inane as this topic may be, the references represent a veritible who's-who of cast-iron sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Ashton Kutcher. "Merge" because Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is the same Ashton Kutcher as elsewhere; the discussed article lacks subject and thus can't be included per WP:CFORK and WP:NOT. "Selective" per WP:NOTDIARY. Also note, per Notability policy, the "topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Selecting by what means, out of curiosity? Huh, somehow I totally failed to parse your comment correctly, my bad. I guess I should ask, what sorts of statements would you say fall afoul of NOTDIARY, and what wouldn't? Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that this discussion would be more appropriate when and if this AfD is closed with "merge" result. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTPAPER suggests that the only policy based rationales are 'keep' or 'merge.' As consensus has previously shown, it meets GNG, it is thus entitled to the keep presumption.  The sources, including two textbooks  also lead to keep, as this article is about a mass media (publisher/publishing of written content) it is similar to our articles on individual blogs (it is, after all, called microblogging); twitter feeds (see eg.Shit My Dad Says); and other forms of publishing. It is thus a discrete topic, not indiscriminate, and it is not unnotable diary, or mere trivia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? (And WP:NEWSBLOG for that matter. Or would you call A. Kutcher a news media?) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By citing other crap exists, are you implying those other articles are, in fact, crap we shouldn't have? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I just cite the essay using shortcut which is more consistent with Alanscottwalker's tone regarding these articles. I didn't examine the articles he linked. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I note we have articles on various forms of publishing. A Twitter feed, like a blog, is a form of publishing.  Some have their own articles because they are well sourced and the wider world is interested in what they have accomplished. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement implies that the bar is lower then other editors are trying to demonstrate. This is in line with "other crap exists", while "other stuff exists" is about enumerating items from closest common group. I would link WP:OTHERSTUFF if you mentioned Barack Obama on Twitter or ... well, whom do we have there already? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Just the same bar. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is my point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you think that Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is not the same Ashton Kutcher as that in movies? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand the question but art is different from the artist, and writing is different from the writer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you state that Ashton Kutcher is an artist IRL, but on Twitter he is a piece of art instead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Ashton Kutcher may or may not be the writer (see Washington Post Business) (he may or may not be the owner, see the forward he wrote for this book ) but the twitter feed is written mass communication (see eg., ,,, and the other RS). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you state that this feed is unrelated to Ashton Kutcher? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have articles about writers -- we have articles about their writings; we have articles about publishers -- we have articles about things they have published; we have articles about persons -- we have articles about works about their life; we have articles about artists -- we have articles about their art; we have articles about personalities -- we have articles about broadcasts in different medium, built around that person. All are related. So, when and why do we do so? When RS lend themselves to the study of the life of the person; and when RS lend themselves to study of a thing. The focus is different; we lose focus, and detail, and sources of knowledge otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's assume that calling one's twitter feed a mass media in such context is appropriate. You previously noted that this "mass media" is similar to blogs in its nature. Do you think that it is appropriate to have articles both on a blog on behalf of single user (as opposed to collective blogs, minority of which are found appropriate encyclopedic topics) and on the blogger himself? Could you please cite such case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume by "appropriate" you mean within policy. The answer is yes for reasons stated by me and others.  According to content fork, "related articles" are not content forks, but even if it were, such a discussion would be better suited to a well thought out merge proposal --- and in light of the current countervailing  broadening proposal.  This is how our consensus and our editing policy work best for article development. As to your second question, I don't know, we have hundreds of blog articles (probably because it is an older format) and many times that biographical articles. But, for example, it would seem someone could benefit from a biographical article on the first blogger, and an article on the first blog, if the reliable sources for those articles exist (it is also more likely the articles might exist, if the wiki was around then, but it was not; however, the sources may not be as varied, expansive, and deep as the biographical material, and the publication material is, here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a weird position, given that the article in question consists of timeline trivia almost exclusively. The properly condensed version would fit the main article ideally and no need in splitting out anything is actually obvious, evident or otherwise explainable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding 'timeline trivia', whether that means something or not, is it the fact that most of the paragraphs start with dates that leads you to that conclusion? Also, while you did say you believe the discussion of 'properly condensing' should be left till afterwards, your arguments seemed to be based entirely on the point that such a thing is self-evidently possible, whereas I really can't see where the 85-90% of the article you propose getting rid of is at the moment. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Don't let me get in the way of whatever you and Alan have going, of course...
 * Nope, try harder. The appropriate coverage of topic would be a version of the lead, stripped of the details that are supposed to be covered elsewhere in the article, but not in the Twitter section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so weird, given the sourcing, just a different perspective. With respect to article development, I thought this comment has some useful thoughts to ponder: [|here] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or strong merge - Previously, I've voted "delete" because of the nature of this topic. However, if only evidence proves that Kutcher uses other social media, like YouTube... Anyway, all AFDs are not cleanups. Instead, if this article must be kept, then I must propose broadening a scope of this article into Ashton Kutcher on social media. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comment in the previous AfD. Nothing's changed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE still stresses that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". GNG is irrelevant when the article has no encyclopedic value. Till 06:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing changed indeed; You do realize that statement still doesn't mean anything to someone else without somehow demonstrating that it isn't suitable? Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Already said it; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Okthanksbye. Till 06:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not have clear, agreed sitewide guidance on whether "Foo on twitter/Foo in social media" is an appropriate style for an article. My personal opinion is that it is not, and that we should merge such things back to the main article—but I refuse to pretend that anything in WP:NOT or our other existing policies would actually preclude this article.  WP:NOT doesn't stretch that far.  Therefore, my position is keep until we've achieved a proper guideline through the normal consensus-building process, at which point it should be relisted.— S Marshall  T/C 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But there seems to be strong consensus on inappropriateness of such topics. Should we just discard it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a guideline. There should be a proper RfC which is properly closed by someone independent and reaches a proper conclusion.— S Marshall  T/C 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Later) Although it doesn't amount to a guideline, the discussion has at least now been closed. The close is not prescriptive in this particular case, saying as it does that "Foo on twitter" is generally not appropriate for an article but "there may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable thus making it impractical to cover his/her use of social media within their main biography in adequate detail." The question for us to decide is therefore, could we cover Ashton Kutcher's use of twitter in his main biography without it being impractical?  Clearly we could; so the correct outcome would be merge back to Ashton Kutcher.  Unfortunately I can't pretend there's a consensus in this discussion to do that.— S Marshall  T/C 07:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources such as Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals or Television Personalities: Stardom and the Small Screen] demonstrate the notability of the topic. Those arguing against this seem mainly to present variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are contrary to multiple policies.  The slippery slope argument is weak because Ashton Kutcher is unusually outstanding in this field, being the "King of Twitter". Warden (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your two big cites do not focus on "Aston Kutcher on Twitter", but rather, offer a trivial mention of him in the context of a larger topic (importance/value of a Twitter presence) that would be appropriate for discussion on the main Twitter article. For Kutcher himself, neither represents a non-trivial mention.  Also, your accusation of WP:CENSOR is, frankly, ignorant as most have not said that his Twitter presence should not be noted.  Rather, it has been said that a standalone article has not been justified. And really, when you get right down to it, the keep arguments are nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT, which places you equally afoul of WP:NPOV as you accuse your opponents of being. Resolute 16:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kutcher is not given as an arbitrary example in these sources but appears because of the prominence of his Twitter account. The coverage appears in a wider context because these sources are books with many hundreds of pages.  But we are not writing a book here and do not require exclusive coverage.  Per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage  ... need not be the main topic of the source material."  WP:CENSOR seems very appropriate here because numerous nay-sayers have indicated that they find such a topic to be distasteful.  You (Resolute) use lots of loaded language in your !vote, summarise your opinion as "Delete" and so are trying to expunge this material completely, edit history and all.  That's censorship. Warden (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, enough censorship accusations. As it is totally clear, media may think of this topic as "significant". However, meeting WP:N and/or WP:NOT is all that matters. I wonder if relisting per DRV is the right thing to do; nevertheless, I've already changed my mind. Still, this article is a bloated rehash of info about Twitter in "Kutcher" article. --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CENSOR seems a very relevant policy, saying "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable...". And that's the issue here.  It's not that the material is false or derogatory or incomprehensible.  The nay-sayers just don't want to be reading about this in Wikipedia - they object to the very nature of the material.  When so many external professional authors have taken the trouble to report upon this matter, Wikipedia editors do not get to assert their own personal preferences instead.  The topic is notable by virtue of its extensive coverage in numerous sources. If some editors don't like this, they should just avert their eyes and move on. Warden (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a content that some users consider objectionable. Objection goes against content forking. Why can't the whole twitter story be told at article about Ashton Kutcher? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. per Colonel Warden's comment. The references prove that the topic is notable. TBrandley 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep mostly per S Marshall (I don't care for the topic, but it seems to meet our guidelines/polices as they stand). I'd prefer we move the article to Ashton Kutcher on social media if it is kept however.  Further, I'm having a hard time distinguishing "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" from "I don't think this is encyclopedic".  I don't see a case being made that this isn't encyclopedic other than "it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me" (which is fairly weak) and "not other encyclopedia covers topics like this" which is a lot more reasonable but given the nature of Wikipedia (fast to cover topics) and Twitter (fairly new) it's not a hugely convincing argument that others won't.  Hobit (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Broadening this scope must be proposed there, NOT here. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Strong Merge I'm still not so sure that this topic is deserving enough for its own article, but I won't contest that it is certainly notable. If the consensus is to keep as it, I'd support it, but overall my preference is to selectively merge into the main Ashton Kutcher article. The article could then be spun out again if it we encounter a WP:TOOLONG situation. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The twitter account in itself gets coverage for being a notable part of the internet, and its accomplishments, being the first Twitter account to have a million followers, and once being the most popular twitter account(for a 13 months anyway), and now has 11 million followers.  D r e a m Focus  21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whose is this account? Whom do reliable sources attribute it to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire. Trivia masquerading as an encyclopedic topic. That Colonel Warden has to resort to censorship accusations to prejudice the outcome reveals the essential intellectual bankruptcy aat the heart of this campaign. --Calton | Talk 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because deleting it with fire is a sign of not being prejudiced, right? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I said before that I believed this was the strongest of the celebrity on Twitter articles. These sources helped contribute to my position on the issue:  . All of these sources directly relate to Ashton Kutcher's activity on Twitter and demonstrate the significant impact that activity has had on, not only Twitter, but on broader society. My personal belief is that this article suffers from a lack of emphasis on these more important aspects of his Twitter activity. Here are some sources that just recently popped up that make the significance even clearer:  . It appears the case for keeping this article has just grown stronger in time.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Still delete: As I said the first time, this article isn't independently notable of Ashton Kutcher himself p  b  p  04:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we hold this article to a higher standard than every other article. One would be hard pressed to find sources on Willie Mays that don't place him in the context of Baseball, on Checkers that talk about him independent of Tricky Dick,  the Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 independent of Al Gore, or ale independent of beer. Notability isn't inherented, but being associated with other notable topics doesn't mean an article should be deleted, either.  Two notable topics can be associated, and even overlap (one of the reasons we have categories.) Wily D  17:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems here is if this particular topic has independent notability on its own. You mention Willie Mays, but The Catch clearly has independent notability on its own, even though there have been several other remarkable ball catches by Willy Mays.  I could say the same thing about Billy Beer, which does have independent notability even though semi-famous people have endorsed or lent their name to other regional beers that don't merit notability or separate articles on Wikipedia.  Why is this particular article necessary and why does Ashton Kutcher merit special mention in regards to his use on Twitter, as opposed to Lady Gaga (whose similar article is now deleted)?  I certainly don't see any special reason why Ashton Kutcher's Twitter usage is particularly noteworthy above and beyond any other aspect of his life.  This is at best an article fork for a very minor and otherwise non-noteworthy aspect of this particular person's life.  What I see here is something that legitimately could be a major section of Ashton Kutcher's article (those are reliable sources).  Oddly enough, why isn't there at least a hatnote to this article in the full Ashton Kutcher article?  I certainly don't see problems for a full merger of this content with the main article that would violate WP:SIZE even in spirit. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - that it meets the usual inclusion guideline isn't really disputed (because it goes so far above the beyond the requirements, given the sources cited in the article. The primary argument for deletion is that the list is indiscriminate.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists three examples: plot summaries, song lyrics, and statistics dumps, which this is obviously none of.  On the more general question of "Is this indiscriminate?" - the answer is "Reliable sources say no".  They cover Kutcher's use of twitter specifically, not merely things Kutcher did that happened to use twitter.  (Though his foot in mouth re:Paterno is of the latter persuation).  Since it meets the usual inclusion guideline, and isn't indiscriminate or trivia, it's a pretty clear keep.  Merger and/or splitting could be done as makes sense per WP:UNDUE and WP:SPLIT.  Kutcher + Kutcher on Twitter is about 50K, which SPLIT says is about where you should think about division, so it could go either way, and might need to change in the future.  I don't know whether merger would be a problem for UNDUE or not, I could believe either position, I think. Wily D  08:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The WP:INDISCRIMINATE examples you have provided are just that—examples. The part being referred to is that which states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Till 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I went on to address whether it's otherwise indiscriminate (and demonstrated that the answer is no). The statement "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" could be referenced in an argument to delete any page on Wikipedia - it's a bit of a misnomer, since we have a usual inclusion standard, which nobody can even pretend isn't met here. The question is "Is this notable and encyclopaedic?" and the answer is "yes", with the only counter-point really being "Twitter is too silly to be encyclopaedic" by people who presumably imagine encyclopaedias to be academic, and academics to be stuffy (which, as an academic, I might take offence to.) Wily D  10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merger won't be problem for WP:UNDUE, but the depth of this aspect of Ashotn Kutcher's coverage would and currently is a huge problem with WP:UNDUE. Merging or keeping in place, this coverage must be reduced to be in line with policy. And after being properly condensed, the content is not going to be a problem in context of size. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - why would you have a Wikipedia page for some famous person's Twitter?! Or we can keep it as a badge of uselessness and wasted time. It is absurd to me. Or how about we make a Wiki for his YouTube (if he has one, and track his views and video rankings) and one for his Facebook to note every million milestown of "likes" he gets? Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I say, next person who says something like this without making any comment about sources such as the ones I provided above, should be trouted senseless by every able-bodied patron in the thread.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, there is a bunch of official looking letters to link for the only real argument for deletion, it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you click on it and read, it says "Don't argue to delete something just because you don't like it", but what are the chances anyone will do that? Wily D  16:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but how do those sources prove that Ashton Kutcher's Twitter is independent of Ashton Kutcher? Every single source that mentions Ashton Kutcher's Twitter also mentions Ashton Kutcher.  p  b  p  16:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do the sources about the economic policy of Barack Obama prove that Obama's economic policy is independent of Barack Obama? They prove it by the sheer number of the sources discussing his economic policy specifically. We have a large number of sources specifically devoted to discussing Kutcher's Twitter activity. Plenty of celebrities tweet, but nearly all of the coverage of that activity is little more than "x celebrity tweeted such-and-such about widgets" while this is not the case with Kutcher.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is rather obvious: sources about economic policy of Barack Obama discuss the economic policy of the state, not those of Barack Obama personally. On the opposite, an article about Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is exactly on Ashton Kutcher in context of one of his activities. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An idea: why have articles on autobiographies and biographical articles on the authors of those autobiographies? Surely they could never be independently notable. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, the sources you've linked only demonstrate notability of topic, which is nether questioned nor relevant to existence of this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Primarily because reliable sources have taken it as a subject. When we weigh that against parade of horribles, it tends in reason to, keep.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment/Defer I ended up here after responding to the RfC for broadening the scope of the article back on its talk page. I've read through this discussion as well to gain more context, and S Marshall said something that I agree with: Wikipedia, as a community, hasn't decided how we are to respond to "X on Twitter" and "X in Social Media" articles in general. If "X on Twitter" articles are allowable, then this article should be too, and should remain as-is. If "X on Twitter" articles are not allowable, but "X in Social Media" articles are, then the scope of this article should be broadened. If neither is allowable, then this should be merged back into the Ashton Kutcher article. I don't think we have a clear direction here without a clear guideline as to how to handle these situations. I think there should be a broader RfC to decide this first, after which we can come back and apply those guidelines here. Arathald (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like there already is a discussion on this Arathald (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it looks like there was discussion on this, and now there is consensus on that. Arguably, it is not yet implemented in policy, though WP:NOT and WP:CFORK do the job. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion wasn't closed when I posted my comment here yesterday. Now that it is, we can apply those findings to make a better decision here. One of the points in the summary is that "There may be very rare exceptions when a person is extremely notable and/or their use of social media is extremely notable thus making it impractical to cover his/her use of social media within their main biography in adequate detail." Ashton Kutcher likely falls into that category. Based on that discussion, I think there's clear enough consensus that we should Keep this article (I would personally argue against it, but I think using that consensus is a better approach. Even if I don't really like it, this looks like the direction that the community has decided to go.) This doesn't preclude broadening the scope to "Ashton Kutcher in Social Media", but that's a separate RfC. Arathald (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The closing admin states that consensus is that topics "X on Twitter" are inappropriate, but in exceptional cases topics "X on social media" are appropriate. This case isn't such, as the whole topic boils down to a single won race on single social media. Also note, as the closing admin note himself, he judged on then-current AfDs, so this closing comment is derived from this discussion. Still, should you read the comments themselves, there is an evident nearly-unanimous consensus that the topics "X on Twitter" are inappropriate under any circumstances. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The closest I see to that in the summary is "Singling out Twitter is probably unnecessary for most celebrities. Instead the topic 'X's use of social media' is preferable." The word "most" here very strongly implies that it may be appropriate for some celebrities, and, based on my reading of comments on this topic, Ashton Kutcher is likely one of those celebrities for whom such an article would be appropriate, if there indeed are any. When I was skimming over the responses (there's too much there for me to actually go through at the time), I agree with the admin that the question was not well phrased, and leads to inherent bias in the votes. In other words, while a lot of commenters agreed that "X on Twitter" articles are generally inappropriate, very few said that they were always inappropriate, which is what you are trying to get across. Most votes did, in fact, say that in exceptional cases, such an article might be allowable. My vote is based directly on what consensus was reached in that discussion. Arathald (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Merge If the information is verifiable and relevent, there is no reason for it not to be at Wikipedia, but I can't find a compelling reason for this to exist as a seperate article as opposed to information at the Ashton Kutcher article.  -- Jayron  32  03:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This is a well-sourced article with a broad coverage on the topic. TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As the page creator, I think that this is an encyclopedic subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashton Kutcher. Most of the content of this article is trivia. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashton Kutcher. The relevant information could easily be put in the main article; no need for a stand-alone article. Just because AK has the most followers, doesn't mean it deserves its own article; maybe a section in the main article and that's it. Sofffie7 (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete notability doesnt transfer to everything Kutcher does, possibly worth a single sentence in the subjects article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashton Kutcher. Except in exceptional circumstances, I can't see any "xon Twitter" article being useful, as it's just an article that could be put into an "on Twitter" or "Social media" section. ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 17:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A trivial article covering a trivial topic. No confirmation from sources that this twitter account has any notability beyond the fan base.-- JOJ Hutton  19:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Warden. Meets WP:GNG. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a pitiful cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CallawayRox (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIARY and WP:NOT. The topic is not encyclopedic. The nature of coverage of celebrities in the media is such that almost all aspects of their lives, even very trivial ones, will get extensive media coverage. That does not mean that all aspects of the life of a celebrity merit a Wikipedia article, which is one of the reasons why we have WP:NOT. That the subject meets the GNG is irrelevant to these considerations: meeting the GNG does not mean that something is encyclopedic, or vice versa. And before someone objects that WP:NOT only applies to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases and statistics, these are merely meant to be examples of the application of a general principle. As the policy says, The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive. I suppose it would be possible to do some sort of merge, but the target article Ashton Kutcher does already include coverage of his Twitter activities and a merge would have to be very selective to avoid giving undue weight to this (very small) aspect of this person's life. Hut 8.5 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What you`re looking for is、"This topic is not encyclopedic because..." Your arguements are applicable to the situation if and only if we've already assumed this is a trivial aspect. If it`s nothing more than a bare assertion of `indiscriminate, diary`; it`s far less relevant than GNG. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, that per WP:N in each and every case WP:GNG is absolutely irrelevant until the subject passes WP:NOT, which is obviously not the case here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, do come off; that's ludicrous and if this were any other article you'd admit that. I call...WP:TRIVIA on Trains, excessive detail only of relevance to hobbyists. Now you're going to sit there and tell me how a nomination like that would get the article deleted, right? Obviously any arguments based on notability or relevance or popularity or whatever else may exist are tootally irrelevant as long as there's a person out there who's willing to merely -claim- the article violates something in WP:NOT, correct? The truth of the matter is, whether it's trains or Twitter, it's not really worth the slightest if you can't be troubled to justify it. It's somewhat odd that people are willing to say nothing more than 'According to this sentence in WP:NOT, some articles should be deleted. Therefore, delete this one' and honestly believe they've made a complete and logical argument. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS again? It's amusing that if "WP:NOT" is substituted with "WP:N" in your comment, neither the reason, nor validity of this comment changes. It is absolutely logical that the article should be deleted if its subject is excluded from the Wikipedia's scope by What Wikipedia is not. Though I disagree that the article should be deleted, I see the rationale. To the contrary, I don't understand your general dismissal of WP:NOT: the page containing " ;company:phone number " would also be excluded by WP:NOT, and I don't believe that there is going to be any single "keep" !vote in the discussion. This article isn't much better in this regard, as if one moved to Ashton Kutcher the several statements that belong there, this article would cover the trivia which is at very least insignificant and not encyclopedic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Er...yes, it's perfectly reasonable that my argument should apply to both NOT and Notability, isn't it? I'm not sure you completely understood me, I was trying to explain how an unjustified argument, in general, shouldn't be given the weight you're trying to give it. I certainly wasn't arguing 'we have trains, so we should have this'. Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So you simply reiterate the position that all these "On DATE @aplusk had N followers and it was noted by REPORTER with a COMMENT" things are not trivia? Then you probably can draw some examples of trivia which you recognize? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, let's note that 'with a COMMENT' is key, that's the whole point of using secondary sources, that they make comments on the topic. Glossing over all the significant information as 'COMMENT' is silly. Secondly, are you asking me to demonstrate what kind of thing I think is trivia? I guess something like 'he often uses multiple question marks when surprised'? A piece of information that does nothing other than exist as a piece of information, rather than relating to or having an effect on something else. kind of like 'the light-saber sound-effect is heard 74 times' would be in a star wars article, that's pretty trivia-like, no? Darryl from Mars (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "with COMMENT" is nothing of a key. It is just citation, which doesn't say anything about the encyclopedic value of the content that the comment verifies. And I would also note that Wiktionary disagrees with you: trivia is "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information", which is the most precise description of the content of the article in question. The fact that these items are verifiable doesn't change much. And, as I noted before, WP:GNG doesn't apply in the lack of separate subject, not to mention GNG–NOT relation and WP:NOTDIARY. So the delete per WP:NOT view is quite relevant here. Still, I'm not sure that this article is eligible for deletion at all, as WP:BEFORE suggests that merge action has higher priority, and selective merge is absolutely possible here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, if you didn't really want my opinion, and you were only after another chance to say 'all this information is obviously unimportant', then I'll just have to disagree with you again. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break deux

 * Keep -- WilyD's sources show that Kutcher's Twitter usage is extremely well covered by mainstream media and a great article has been written that presents it in a neutral view. I'll be happy to argue for deletion of 99.9% of X on Twitter articles if you take a random celebrity with a Twitter account and try to build an article around it.  But Kutcher's twitter usage coverage is definitely exceptional. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just not enough to keep the article. As "Ashton Kutcher on Twitter" is a clear subtopic of Ashton Kutcher, per WP:CFORK it may only be kept separate if there is some good reason for that. Your statement that the content of the article in question should be condensed eliminates the last resort argument for not merging these articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge When I look at an encyclopedia article I think, mmm would my great grandson in 100 years consider it an encyclopedic subject and be interested in learning about it... Unfortunately coverage in news sources has somehow become a "wikipedia must therefore cover it too". Y es you could argue it meets sourcing requirements but it still doesn't address why wikipedia actually needs to cover i as a separate article and why a condensed summary can't just be added to the biography like Justin Bieber's. Just saying.♦  Dr. Blofeld  16:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ashton Kutcher, per WP:NOTDIARY and above. --  Wikipedical (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't trivial. Hathatehat (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge there's a difference between unacceptable WP:CONTENTFORKS versus unacceptable WP:SPINOUTS. The comments that focus exclusively on reliable sources and the notability guideline are focused on only one part of an incomplete answer. Even more important than a guideline about sourcing is our policy on What Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The spirit of the policy matters as much as the letter. The exact letter states that:
 * "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary."
 * This policy of WP:NOTDIARY is itself sufficient to warrant deletion. In addition, the opening statement of the WP:NOT content section discourages articles that are assembled by a complete exposition of all details (for example, every single time that Ashton Kutcher passed another celebrity in terms of twitter followers). There are numerous other sections of Wikipedia policy that discourage this kind of "X in Y" article except under unusual circumstances. If mere sources were enough, we wouldn't need WP:NOT. WP:NOT is to say that even some articles with proper sourcing do not provide enough encyclopedic information to be treated as a separate subject. In the alternative, I would support a merge back to the main article once all the details about who passed who when are substantially trimmed and summarized (e.g.: "Ashton Kutcher had the most followers on twitter from date X to date Y, and again on date A to date B.) Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place to indiscriminately collect information per WP:NOT. The Ashton Kutcher article makes sufficient mention. WP:NOTDIARY applies. Hekerui (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no need for another article; this is covered just fine on Ashton Kutcher. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.