Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter


 * 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 no consensus. Firstly, percentages for the !vote counters: 59% in favor of keep, 66% keep/merge, 41% delete/merge, 34% delete, 6% merge. Clearly there are no indications of consensus on the !votes except maybe a weak consensus in the keep/merge category that the content itself should be kept. When I look at the arguments, I see a major misconception in the delete rationales. I gave a reading of WP:INDISCRIMINATE over just to be sure my understanding is correct. There are three criteria: 1) Summary only descriptions of works. After giving the article a read, I see quite an extensive and comprehensive article that far exceeds a summary of a fiction book or event including critical receiption, controversies, rankings, and impact.  2) Lyrics, clearly not. 3) Excessive listings of statistics. Although there is a particular section (Rankings) involving statistics, this is not the focus of the article or even an overwhelming section of it.  So I'm inclined to throw out arguments of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Then after reading comments about WP:V, I was absolutely stumped by the rationales.  Some rationales included, paraphrasing of course, "The subject is not listed in the sources."  If that were a requirement of WP:V, we could never split an article.  When an article becomes increasingly longer and requires more time to load on slower connections, it becomes neccessary to split it into it's own article.  The subject is still where it was forked from.  I don't think the need of a literal split is neccessary.  This article is clearly forked from the main President Obama article and would be inappropriate for a merge unless significantly trimmed. That discussions, what should be trimmed or if it should be merged, can take place outside of this venue. I don't find a significantly more impressive rationale from the keep side either. WP:SPLIT seems to fly in the face of WP:GNG which requires the subject of the article to have significant coverage in multiple sources. Again, when considering this as a fork of the President Obama article, these concerns should be put to rest. The sources discuss President Obama's use of Twitter and it's impact on the presidency and campaign. Finally, after reading both of the "Main pages" listed directly below, I see a consensus developing that ...on Twitter articles are going to be inappropriate overall. However, there is enough opposition to this blanket approach that I see no overridding reason to close this as delete. The result of this discussion is no consensus with the option to hold a discussion or RFC to merge. v/r - TP 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama on Twitter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is not an article about @BarackObama it is an article about Barack Obama on Twitter and as such it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article. Articles on the use of a social medium by a public figure are simply not notable, some extraordinary "accounts" are however not in this case nor in the case of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The problem is that this topic does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article and is not of any educational value. The sources are for Barack Obama not for his account and are therefore SYNTHESIS, therefore we must delete this entry and merge a small amount of useful information to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians or Barack Obama possibly Barack Obama if not we will have to accept an unending series of Barack Obama on Facebook, on Instagram, on Pinterist, on Google +, Barack Obama's email account, Barack Obama's home in Chicago and other useless TRIVIA. Lastly the relevant policy in this case what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No wonder you did not link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it has nothing to do with this article. As for the rest, it is the same throwing of mere assertions and flawed reasoning and seeing what sticks that I have come to expect at AfD, eg invoking notability without substantiation, a slippery slope argument, and the hair-splitting invention of calling the use of sources about BO's use of Twitter SYNTH because they are not specifically about the account itself. Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a proper separate article, per WP:SPLIT, as including it in the main Barack Obama article would be undue weight. Furthermore, this is one of the few on Twitter accounts that I support existing, because Obama has specifically used Twitter extensively throughout his presidency and in specific venues, such as the Twitter Town Hall. There has been extensive coverage on his Twitter use and how it relates to his presidency and his current presidential campaign, shown in sources like this. If Barack Obama received an extensive amount of coverage on his usage of other venues, then those might be notable enough to make, but right now, that is just an OTHERSTUFF argument, because there is no indication that Obama significantly uses any other venue besides Twitter. Furthermore,, the comments about email and his home are red herrings. This article is not indiscriminate or violate NOT, because of the extensive specific coverage of Obama's Twitter account. Silver  seren C 00:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 03:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - While 99.6% of the YOURNAMEHERE on Twitter articles are inherently unencyclopedic, there are sufficient independent published sources showing for this to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like I ought to be fair and say that maybe there are better arguments for deletion than have been presented, they are so bad. SYNTH is about the use of sources, not the choice of them. If the sources were not about the Twitter account, someone could have removed them because they did not verify the statements they were supposed to cite. Not only does no one seem to understand SYNTH, but people misunderstand it in different ways. Wee! Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Barack Obama is being cited in reliable sources his account @BarackObama is not, this article is about Barack Obama and is therefore a duplicate that is unsourced.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentThe delete rationale seems to be a non-justification. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." That rightly says the article is not -necessarily- suitable, it doesn't come close to saying it's unsuitable. I forget the formal logic terminology for this.150.35.244.246 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral if renaming a title to a broader scope - Seriously, this is a collaboration of recorded events from news. However, we are dealing with the President of the United States, not Kutcher or Bieber... or Gaga. If people want this article kept, then this article is too much on Twitter. He might have used YouTube and other stuff. Therefore, renaming this article to "Barack Obama on " and then broadening scope of this article would help, right? Otherwise, why else keeping Obama-Twitter is nothing is to be done? Without general analysis or thought on Twitter account as a whole, this is a delete for me if Twitter account stays a Twitter account. Regardless of notability of this topic, the whole article speaks something that is against standards of general needs of a reader. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Showing how the elected leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth uses a popular social networking site to gather support and influence people to his causes, seems quite encyclopedic to me.  D r e a m Focus  07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Political campaigning and advertising is potentially notable (e.g. Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Daisy (advertisement)). If something involves the president of the USA and is widely covered in the media over a long period of time, it's probably notable.  Political controversies regularly come to AfD and are quite often kept.  Merging to Barack Obama is impossible due to its length, and it can therefore stand as a spinout.  Changing it to "Barack Obama use of social media" might be possible, but I don't believe it's necessary.  The internet and Twitter are now important media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Must I say something? Surely, this topic is notable, right? However, writing an article about this topic.... is not very easy, but I guess it has some merit about the next campaign. Still, this article is just retelling of all events, and no significant viewpoints have been yet made about Obama-Twitter. I crossed out "delete" in favor of Neutral because of WP:SIZE, unfortunately, which speaks about loading issues. WP:MOS comes in play, as well, because even a special issue of the Time magazine can do better than this article, no offense. --George Ho (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: because this is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTCASE study, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is not a simple issue of notability. The fact is, for any major public figure, you're going to be able to assemble sources about a myriad of subtopics. Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable. The problem is, you're starting to get into topic selections that resemble the biases of the editor. You're starting to confuse "the subject" with "what the subject is notable for". It's your standard WP:CONTENTFORK problem where people can write multiple articles that are all basically about the same thing, which would make the encyclopedia even more unmanageable than it already is. (Note: this is a copy-and-paste comment that I also posted at the similar Bieber article. Everything I said there applies equally here.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not the only one. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The use of social media by political candidates and campaigns has been the target of lots and lots of coverage. If ever these articles are notable it is here. Obama campaign on Facebook could even probably be a notable article, though it might make more sense to have one article Obama campaign on social media.174.234.0.33 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is getting ridiculous. Here:    . Someone stop the madness!--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability of this topic is not relevant to the execution of this article, no matter how the quality of this article is. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article is not a reason. My point above is that all those sources focus rather heavily on Obama's Twitter activity as a subject unto itself.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet even the next or the next 10 revisions are current revisions. Even changes become current versions. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete because Wikipedia should not contain everything found somewhere on the Internet. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per nominator ("...it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article.") and suggest that he start a WP:Merge discussion per our policies. Also suggest he/she take the time to read WP:Synthesis, as using a source mainly about one thing in an article on something else is both not synthesis and not against GNG sourcing policy.   Th e S te ve   05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colapeninsula. You can disagree with the ones about celebrities, but this one involves the president of the United States, who uses it for campaigning purposes.  Statυs (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Colapeninsula and The Steve. To me, passess WP:GNG and agree it's too long to merge.  Vertium   (talk to me)  10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was about to nom this myself as yet another indiscriminate amalgamation of trivial doings. This is especially true for the P{resident of the US, who receives heaps of media coverage as to what is on the White House dinner table at Thanksgiving, what the family gives each other at XMas, Michelle Obama's arms, the president swatting a fly during an interview, etc... There is nothing especially notable about an official White House twitter feed, any more than there is about a White House telephone or White House e-mail account.  This is far more of a slam dunk than the Kutcher or Bieber articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per common sense; we're a serious encyclopedia and this is a trivial topic. Encyclopediacy trumps any notability guideline. This is simply inappropriate for an academic resource, our reliability aside. The rise of new media has blurred the line between notability and sheer triviality&mdash;closing admin must not fail to distinguish this line. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I worry that 'common' sense has lead to some misunderstanding of both Wikipedia's policies and Wikipedia itself. While I certainly have no objections to the development of articles on academic subjects, the fact that you see either Wikipedia or academia being limited in a way that doesn't include this article is, I think, a mistake. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Twitter is a communication medium. Presidents use communications mediums. With very rare exceptions like FDR's Fireside chats, we shouldn't make articles on how Presidents use communications mediums. Do you see an article like Theodore Roosevelt on the telephone or Ronald Reagan on television? Of course not. This isn't an encyclopedic topic at all. Now, if this were merged into, say, Barack Obama on social media this might be okay. But this isn't an encyclopedic topic.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Ronald Reagan filmography, a clearly notable topic? Silver  seren C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You assume wrong; I mean his television appearances as a president and politician, which is clearly not a notable topic as a whole. Individual ones may be if they are speeches or addresses to the nation, but it isn't a notable topic as a whole.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY. Not everything that is reported in reliable sources is appropriate for its own article, especially things that are trivial and commonplace like this.  Some of the more notable material on this subject should be presented in articles like Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but not in a standalone article on the subject.  -Scottywong | talk _  21:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, all of you need to stop using INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't apply. Second, Obama's use of Twitter is very clearly not trivial, when it had had a significant impact on his presidency and his current campaign and he's used it as such (in Twitter Town Halls and the like). An article covering this usage is appropriate and easy to source. Silver  seren C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a really good source for that. Silver  seren C 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, INDISCRIMINATE can apply; it is commonly interpreted that the 3 examples listed in the guideline are just that: examples of where INDISCRIMINATE applies. Whether or not it should apply here is for the closer of this debate to decide. Also, if it has had a significant impact on his presidency and current campaign, then why not consider merging it to Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment sigh.  Except that INDISCRIMINATE is a policy specifically against things that are only verifiable, ie things with not enough sources per the GNG.  This is explicitly stated in the intro: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  It goes on to list some examples, like plot summaries, which by their nature, will only have one primary source, the work itself.   Meeting the GNG with third-party, independent, reliable sources means that INDISCRIMINATE will not apply.    Th e S te ve   01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to The Steve, and anyone else who opposes use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this debate: WP:GNG addresses INDISCRIMINATE by saying 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." Also, to be considered verifiable, it must have reliable sources, which are defined here as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, while the specific examples INDISCRIMINATE gives typically do not have this, they are therefore not verifiable and not representative of all articles that INDISCRIMINATE applies to. The quote you gave from the intro to INDISCRIMINATE, that verifiability "does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", shows this. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see that you are correct. This policy was changed this February after a few years to emphasize the indiscriminate part.  I also see that INDISCRIMINATE basically boils down to "Consensus can override the notability shown by sources if enough editors decide they don't like it".  It does kind of hint that maybe you should have a reason to exclude valid sources (using announcements, databases, and minor news as examples), but its doesn't come out and say it.   In that case, carry on.  It does seem strange to have WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as this roundabout way of saying the same thing though.    Th e S te ve   05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not personally "like" nor do I "dislike" neither this article nor its subjects - I simply do not think "X on Twitter" articles should be included in this encyclopedia. The lead at WP:Notability states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." As an indiscriminate collection of information, "X on Twitter" articles should be excluded by the latter, violating both WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DIARY: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are." Now this I understand.  Keep excessively detailed stuff out of articles in general.  Stick to summary and overview style.  However, for it to be a deletion reason, every single statement in the article must be trivial.  Every one.  You are saying that nothing in the article is significant in the least. "Obama has used Twitter to promote legislation and support for his policies" - insignificant.  "During his 2008 campaign he spent a lot of time as the world's most followed account" - No impact whatsoever on his campaign.  "Obama has at various times held public forums in which he fielded questions posted on Twitter." - way too much detail, should not be included in his biography.  "violating" WP:NOTDIARY is not a deletion reason, it is a reason to trim content.  The significance of a given statement is its presence in supporting sources, not on my or your opinion.  Sure, the vast majority of tweets are like a diary, and should certainly be left out.  Not all of them, and not ones with WP:SIGCOV   Th e S te ve   07:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily true. If you get rid of all the content that violates WP:NOT and you realize you only have 3 sentences left, and that's all you can say about the topic that has encyclopedic value, then you delete the article and use those 3 sentences in other articles, as suggested in my comments above.  -Scottywong | spout _  14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * comment That sounds like an excellent reason to redirect and merge, but a very poor one to delete. And my point exactly, thank you.  NOTDIARY shouldn't be used for deletion, only for trimming or merging.    Th e S te ve   04:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep When I created this page, I did so just because I saw other Foo on Twitter pages. With so many articles related to the President, I feel that this adds content that is informative and would otherwise be left uncoordinated and only obtainable by numerous Google searches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants this article kept, why not userfication then? That way, let's wait for future upcomings that can generally signify this topic. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I vote to keep this article. I agree with Silver Seren and Anarchangel! -- Tito Dutta  ✉  23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. References establish notability. Everyking (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, in case someone ends up counting. While WP:IINFO is a very nice general statement, until someone explains how it applies to this article right here in any more depth than 'because I say so', I don't see the motivation to vote any other way. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable as perhaps the prime example of the use of social media in modern politics, and a legitimate subtopic of Presidency of Barack Obama. As I said on another of these AFDs, most people's use of Twitter isn't particularly notable, but Obama's is. Robofish (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For the love of God delete. I think all the " on Twitter" should be deleted. There is no encyclopedic value in any of these articles. Keeping these articles could lead to a mass of other non notable articles. I can see the slide of Wikipedia's dominance approaching. Even the Roman Empire couldn't last forever. It's a shame. Wikipedia was so useful too, now its just a fan site.-- JOJ Hutton  12:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Innocuous Comment I'm amused by, firstly, the fact that you see Wikipedia as 'dominant' in the way of the Roman Empire, and secondly that you think deleting articles like this saves Wikipedia from sliding into obscurity. Whether they're appropriate or not, whatever, but implying they'd be the end of our empire is a new one. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, when a club or in this case an "encyclopedia" lets just anyone into the party, then the quality of the party begins to diminish and people stop going. If Wikipedia is going to have an article on the most mundane topics, people will stop using the site over time. Historical fact.-- JOJ Hutton  13:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, if we get overwhelemed with 20 articles for every bio we already have and include Miley Cirus on Pinterest, Hillary Clinton on Intsagram, George Clooney on Facebook, Prince William on Flickr, Kobe Bryant on Google+, Tom Brady on Twitter, Peyton Manning on Tumbler, Madonna on Friendster, Eminem on MySpace, I bet we could find some sources for them all but really they would be forks of their actual notable owner and notability is just not inherited no matter how badly you want their to be a social media article on someone's account it will overun this project with so much crap we wont be able to afford the server space and our searches would be overun with bullshit that people could not find the vital information that they seek.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I assure you, the only thing overrunning vital information may be run-on sentences. This is perhaps an argument for a WP:EXCULSIVECLUB policy, but it still doesn't quite justify deleting this article. Hopefully any concerned take note of that. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no relevance in this article whatsoever Jeremyeyork (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete like the other ones (Kutcher and Bieber). It was proposed that this is a legitimate split because the Obama article would be overwhelmed, but I don't think that that's valid: that article could probably be trimmed to accommodate whatever is salvageable. Article should be deleted and a summary of the relevant information (a paragraph, maybe) placed in the main article. Drmies (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and possibly expand to include other social media. His Google+ account, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment@Scjessey, what policy is that based on? Why should it be kept? COMMONSENSE is that a twitter feed is just not notable independent of its notable owner if the account is only famous because of its creator and notability is not inherited, there is a real lack of policy or guideline opinions amoung the keepists here and that is alarming as this is not a vote of whether we like Obama or not. "Note that obviously a short section on Twitter (and similar social media) in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate." was part of the closing administrators rationale for delete at Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter and it could easily be so here as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy that says 'Wikipedia has articles on things'? That seems like the 'commonsense' justification to me. The policy based opinions, if you want to call them that, which support keep is that the policies and bare assertions you cite as reasons to delete do not apply. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Justification - The use of Twitter (and social media in general) by Obama, his campaign, and his staff has been reported quite extensively in the mainstream media, as supported by the numerous references in the article. For this reason, it easily passes the General Notability Guidelines and, therefore, is perfectly acceptable as an article. I think the article is little more than useless trivia, but if it passes WP:GNG more power to it. Another issue is that there simply isn't space in Barack Obama for it, partly because the "parent" article is written in summary style and is designed to have a considerable number of daughter/sub articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the deletion argument is "simply not notable" which means IDONTLIKEIT, "IT" in this case meaning not Twitter or Obama, but articles of this sort. No actual reason for not liking it can be or has been giving, beyond the feeling that in some way this is not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. That's a feeling, a disLIKE, not a logical argument. Why a twitter feed should be not notable in any case has not been demonstrated, or even argued--nor can it be--any means of communication is at least potentially notable in at least some particular instance. I can give reason why i am personally  more interested in Obama's books or speeches than his twitter feeds, but it has nothing to do with notability. I am not interested in some forms of writing or speaking, and I may choose to ignore them, but that's not do to any intrinsic properties about what is important in the world.    Personally, I have no interest whatever in what use Obama or anyone else may make of Twitter, nor in what anyone may say about it, but still it is the case that RSs have published significant amounts about it, and therefore it meets our basic policy. It isn't Indiscriminate, for that would mean we'd have an article on [everyone] on Twitter, which nobody here is proposing--nor is an exceptionally important an commented on person like Obama a lead onto a slippery slope towards that.   DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Under NPOV, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. See WP:NPOVFACT. Also see WP:NOTPAPER: "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic." The biographical article Barack Obama on Twitter is not a written account of Barack Obama's life. Moreover the keeps have failed to establish that Barack Obama on Twitter is a significant part of a written account of Barack Obama's life. In fact, Twitter is such an insignificant event in the life of Barack Obama that a search of the Barack Obama article for "twitter" reveals that twitter is not even mentioned in the Barack Obama biography. That raises WP:NOTDIARY issues, which notes that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. The keeps have not established consensus to condense Barack Obama on Twitter to a brief summary in the Barack Obama main article as required before creating an article spinout. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is part of treating biographical facts on Barack Obama in one biographical article. Rather, the creation of Barack Obama on Twitter bypassed the NPOV required article spinout consensus process. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is a natural part of growth for the Barack Obama main article as required by WP:NOTPAPER. Barack Obama on Twitter should be deleted per NPOV and NOT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suddenly, real arguments. To be honest, and this is perhaps a small detail, I don't think the article under consideration would come as a biographical split from Barack Obama, it seems more closely associated with 'Campaign 2008', 'Presidency/Public Image', 'campaign 2012'. Also, I think it's slightly disingenuous to suggest, considering the subject of the article and our prescripts about article size, that anything we haven't or haven't already included in the main biographical article is necessarily insufficiently notable per NOTDIARY. For example, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize is at present a smallish paragraph and a proc in the infobox; in comparison to that, I wouldn't assume the Barack Obama article enumerates all the notable things which relate to the man. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouled we have a section on his e-mail usage? Or a list of people who's hand he has shaken? That and these tweets is giving UNDUE WEIGHT and is part of what wikipedia is WP:NOT.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Has his email usage been covered extensively in reliable sources like his Twitter usage has? Furthermore, has it had a significant impact on his presidential campaign and presidency in the manner that his Twitter usage has? Silver  seren C 23:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is another example of non-sequitor LWC, you list two things which may or may not be worth an article, then simply claim that this article also shouldn't exist. Undue weight would apply better if you could show that the usage of twitter is actually so unimportant as to not be worth the given amount of prose, and even then, that's only really a justification to trim and, if the text somehow became incredibly short, merge to an article like 'campaign' or 'public image'. WP:NOT continues to fail to apply. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still reviewing this article but I do not see how it really relates to his life in a significant way, as opposed to the presidency and campaign and politics, where it seems more connected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, no, rename, no WP:TNT, oh, something! Unlike the other celebrity "X on Twitter" articles, I think there is a kernel here that actually belongs, through perhaps not under this title, and the article as written really isn't it either. The sources are out there in abundance for an article under a title like Barack Obama's use of social medial in the 2008 Presidential campaign, that is both broader and at the same time narrower than this article.  That's the notable core here, the way Obama used the internet and social media in a manner never seen before, and changed the game of campaigning for this generation, not the twitter account in isolation. That's the trick with this article, as written, it doesn't belong here, but Obama and social media does belong somewhere per the sources out there.  Courcelles 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Barack Obama Article. After looking at the Article and seeing all the references to using the account to promote his policies, I would say it warrants a Section but not a whole independent Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, Barack Obama is written in summary style because there is an enormous amount of material to work with. By necessity, the main Obama article has dozens of sub/daughter articles that are linked by means of a template (including this one). It just isn't at all practical to perform a merge. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: By "looked at the Article," I meant the Obama/Twitter Article under discussion. In any case, Barack Obama on social media sites if not even more generally Barack Obama on the Internet would be a more appropriate daughter Article, rather than singling out Twitter when his accounts on other sites are part of the same impact. Such a broader daughter Article could contain a Section about Twitter just as easily as the main Barack Obama Article could. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Silver Seren's points. I Never Cry 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge the very few tweets which are supported by reliable sources that they were widely reported and commented on, and can be shown to have some sort of little-n notability: sustained importance. Importantly, these very few should be merged into the narrative of particularly important events. --Lexein (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This source is not discussing individual tweets, but the impact Obama's Twitter use had on his 2008 campaign and during the 4 years of his presidency. Silver  seren C 04:52, 12 July 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.