Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber 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   Delete. Not an easy close, obviously, but (similar to Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter) the stronger arguments are with the "delete" opinions. Once someone or something gets sufficiently notable (like Justin Bieber), many subaspects, minutiae and trivia of his work or life get excessive attention, mainly from the more popular and less reliable media (tabloids and the like), but also from more serious, reliable sources. While the latter do more to establish notability, the fact remains that this moves into WP:NOTDIARY territory, and WP:IINFO (and verges on WP:COATRACK as "This article is about both Bieber as a topic on Twitter and Bieber's use of Twitter.", mixing two related but separate topics, including things like how Charlie Sheen made an error when he wanted to post something to Justin Bieber). Note that obviously a short section on Twitter (and similar social media) in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. Fram (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber on Twitter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is not a notable topic. Notability is not inherited and twitter accounts like youtube videos or email address or stretch of highway or sites with many visitors simply do not carry on the notability of the artwork, city, highway, or person they are associated with. All the sources are about Justin Bieber not about his account itself, this could be merged into one sentence in his article and this article deleted as it is not notable at all. LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD procedures require that The article's creator or other significant contributors should ideally be left a message at their talk page(s). This was not done, and I regard it as very poor form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Laura Hale for dropping me a line: she didn't have to do that, and I appreciate her fairness. Hawkeye, it's a gutsy nomination, but I agree that Luciferwildcat should have notified lots of people here--unless, of course, they didn't understand how contentious this is (which would really surprise me). Anyway, that's not a reason, of course, to squash this. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Not all the sources are about the Twitter account. Some are about how ("random comments") or how often it is used ("Twitter addict"). Most are about what was written in it. For the sake of the normal use of modern English, I cannot really support taking Justin Bieber's name out of this article completely, but if one did so, it would still have import. This article is, at 70K, bigger than the Justin Bieber article at 62K. A merge is out of the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon for famous people to have articles that are well over 150KB large. It's natural to have bios on popular people to have larger articles than those that are not. Personally, I would think the Justin Bieber article would have more stuff in it, just as I would expect with Lady Gaga or even Rihanna. --MuZemike 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that. WP:SPLIT and WP:SPINOUT. Anarchangel (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's been rated a good article. Sourced, notable per press coverage, and the article is about the twitter account not just Bieber, despite what the proposer says.  I know a lot of people hate Bieber and Twitter and think Wikipedia should only cover high-minded topics like Latin poetry, dead presidents, and Star Trek, but reflecting the decline of human civilisation to the level of bum-scratching apes is not a valid reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have fooled me that people think that those are our topic foci. Our articles on, , and  have all been nominated for deletion.   was nominated for deletion, twice, and that's had eight centuries of scholarly analysis from Summa Theologica onwards, some of it in Latin.  This whole idea that Wikipedians want to focus upon high-minded topics is just nonsense, and unsupported rhetoric that other Wikipedians use in arguments like this.  The reality is a lot more complex. Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment' We can't just keep articles related to celebrities that are often "hated on" that is an invalid argument and public figures are all widely beloved and despised. The merits of this article are insufficient for an article independent of the Justin Bieber article and the Celebrity use of Twitter article where this minor content belongs, and is more appropriate.LuciferWildCat (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep : The article has many reliable sources, very specifically the claims in national newspapers that he is the second most popular celebrity Twitter user (presumably in the world?), which counts as notable in my book. My personal opinion, however, can be summed up quite nicely with this - oh how I wish WP:IDONTLIKEIT was a valid argument to use for AfD at times like these. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment so your own rationate is that Justin Bieber is the second most popular celebrity on Twitter and that should be covered on the article for Justin Bieber, you have said nothing of the account itself!LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't hate Justin Bieber he's very sexy actually and Twitter is something I use and love daily, nevertheless when you say in the defense of this article, "he is the second most popular celebrity Twitter" you are talking about Justin Bieber and not the account, this content should be merged into the Bieber article and summarized, it is not notable on its own weight and has a place on that article, notability is just not inherited. LuciferWildCat (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: 3% of the servers does not have to do with the specific account. The marketing aspects of it do not have to do with Bieber.  There are a number of non-Bieber marketing sources talking about it.  The academic sources talking about how his account were a central node of discussion around the Arab spring are not about Bieber, but the fans talking retweeting and commenting on content around it. --LauraHale (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep This does not meet the same level of quality and in-depth focus of Ashton Kutcher's Twitter activity, but it does appear that his activity on Twitter gets unique and independent coverage that goes beyond mere detailing of what he's tweeting about.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Upon further inquiry I am convinced this is more than suitable for an independent article. --The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete on principle. Really? The unfiltered musings of a teenage singer have their own page in an encyclopedia? Sometimes its best to ignore the rules lawyering, go for common sense, and just delete this fantarding nonsense. Hekerui (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bieber, like most major public figures, has a notable impact on culture and society. How his activity on a major social networking service such as Twitter has enabled him to amplify that impact seems to me a matter "worthy of notice" and we have the sources to demonstrate as much. Maybe you fail to see the encyclopedic purpose of detailing how a specific person has influenced the use of a service or influenced society through said service, but I think there is a more-than-reasonable argument to be made that an article on a pop culture icon's social networking activities can and does serve as an informative insight into our fast-moving inter-connected culture in the Age of the Internet. Should you have issues with wording there is a way to address that.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely put, Hekerui. I see the "rules" being thrown about all these discussions--it's sourced, people yak about it, etc. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft. This sets a sort of precedent for other silly, pop-culture articles; if we can keep this, why not create things about various other artists or (heaven forbid!) an artist outside the English-speaking world. The article may have reliable sources, but those sources are worthless if the topic is not notable. It has admittedly received significant coverage in reliable sources, but any out-of-the-ordinary remark a celebrity makes on Twitter will receive some coverage. I, like Ritchie333, wish that IDON'TLIKEIT were valid at this point. Inter  change  able  23:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I understand fancruft being something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the article would be of extremely limited interest over a relatively obscure topic where there was limited sourcing. FuseTV mentioned the article on Twitter.  The sources include ones in several languages including Romanian, Turkish and Italian.  They also represent sources from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India.  Justin Bieber has 25 million followers, more than the population of Australia.  There are over 100 different sources including academic works, newspapers, popular culture works.  I'm trying to understand what you are defining as fancruft here.  Can you provide additional details?  And if the article has that many reliable sources that would in most cases far exceed those required for notability elsewhere, then what is going on?  The article goes beyond what Bieber's random blatherings on Twitter are.  Please elaborate more?  If necessary, I can work to improve the article to add any of the 3,000+ available WP:RS sources that do more than just mention random tweets Bieber made. --LauraHale (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft, ie, WP:FART. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft; let Wikia have it, though.
 * Note, this has been listed at Featured Article Candidates for Deletion. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article is reliably sourced. Article topic easily passes WP:GNG.  Article cannot be merged back into Justin Bieber as there was no consensus at a merge proposal to do so.  Not seeing the evidence of fancruft in the article.  Would like example text from the article that suggests there is a neutrality problem with the article making it fancruft. --LauraHale (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Article nomination was out of process.  Nominator did not inform major contributors to the article.   Article is reliably sourced.  Article topic easily passes WP:GNG.  Article cannot be merged back into Justin Bieber as there was no consensus at a merge proposal to do so.  Article passes Notability (web) easily and passes Notability (organizations and companies), where Bieber's Tweeting is treated like a brand.  (which sources suggest as per the article as true)  Article contains much non-trivial information. Article is neutral.  Article use of sources spanning close to five years means it has sustained coverage, which follows the rules.  It has been subject to MULTIPLE academic articles.  Coverage is non-trivial given the article's focus and the length of time and the number of people and tweets involved. Article passed WP:GA, which includes things like comprehensiveness of topic and reliability of sourcing as criteria.   --LauraHale (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted you certainly can insert information from this article to other articles where that information is relevant. --Bensin (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure where. It certainly cannot go into Justin Bieber as the merge proposal suggested this topic had enough WP:RS and length that couldn't be easily summarised down to do that adequately.  If you want to show what a multiple article merge would look like, please have at it. --LauraHale (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are interpreting the result of that vote too literally. And if circumstances change, like if this article was to be deleted, people might look differently on the merge proposal. Regardless: any information deemed relevant to other articles can be inserted there. --Bensin (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are some examples of the very much not fantard reasons for keeping this article:    . Obviously the significance of Bieber's presence on Twitter is far greater than just any random pop culture icon's presence on any random social network. Stop with the pop-hate and try to consider that it may actually be as notable an aspect of the singer as his actual musical productions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is reliably sourced. Passes WP:GNG with substantial coverage in mainstream sources. Refers to something involving millions of people and millions of dollars. "Delete as cruft" falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, good articles are inherently article worthy. All you have to do is read the lead to see how this is notable. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think poorly of Beiber, and even more poorly of Twitter, but in the cases of Gaga and Beiber only, I think that the race for #1 is significant enough to warrant a keep. For all other celebs, social media activity should be part of the main article. I caution the forces behind the creation of this article on that they have raised significant backlash here, and that they likely won't see nearly as many keep votes if they make ...on Twitter articles for others, or make Justin Beiber on .... articles for other platforms.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, I did not create any ones other than Bieber and Gaga. I think the notability is dubious at best outside these two.  (Kutcher may be a special case.)  I have zero intention of creating any more because I saw the rough road at WP:DYK to get it through and knew anything else would face continued WP:BATTLEGROUND so wouldn't be worth it.--LauraHale (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, reliably sourced, passes WP:GNG and per Sven. ⇒ T A  P  15:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – I am not going to !vote in this AfD, but the deletion discussion should focus on whether or not this article is appropriately within Wikipedia's scope and policies. The fact that it was listed as a GA or is currently at FAC should be irrelevant; it is certainly possible to write a high-quality article that does not fall under Wikipedia scope or standards. --MuZemike 18:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTTRIVIA (specifically item #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE).  I do appreciate the hard work editors put into this; but:  While this is a well written article and would make a fine addition to Bieberpedia (yes, that really does exist), I think the subject matter fails as a stand-alone article from a historical and encyclopedic view.  There are possibly parts which could be merged into either the Bieber article or the Twitter article from a Pop culture standpoint, but if we start down this path with Bieber, and Lady GaGa, and, and, and ... (Does Charlie Sheen have one yet?) ... where do we draw the line.  WP:V of WP:RS should be a goal of all articles indeed, but they should not be the "be-all-end-all" for inclusion IMHO. Chedzilla (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Attempts were made to merge it into Justin Bieber. If you read Talk:Justin_Bieber, you'll see the discussion was basically WP:UNDUE, too long and the topic was independently notable preventing a merge.  No consensus to do that.  What has changed for YOU since the merge proposal?  How would you integrate it in to other articles?  How is the article indiscriminate?  Examples please? --LauraHale (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Since closing administrators should be impartial, I suggest that this discussion be closed by an administrator from outside the English-speaking world, who has not heard of Bieber. Inter  change  able  20:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He's popular internationally. The only way to get such a truly impartial administrator is if said closing admin was an alien. --MuZemike 20:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "Wikipedia articles are not: A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Statements like "Most fans respond favorably when he retweets their messages" and "Bieber utilizes the tag #RandomTwitterHour in order to let his fans know he is making random comments" are not "knowledge". And they are not "accepted knowledge" by recognized experts. Reading an encyclopedia article should not result in filling your head with nothings and banalities. Reading an encyclopedia article should enrich your mind in some way, and not be an utter waste of your time. You should know more after you have read an encyclopedia article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The author of the article is a recognized expert on social media and marketing. The sources reference accepted experts. What we should do is get rid of all those worthless articles on motorcycles. Talk about banalities. Delete all of that rubbish per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? Stop lying. Recognized expert on social media and marketing? Some of us here built a successful career on that, unlike the person you are talking about. Arcandam (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes "cruft" is a code word for "I don't like it". Sometimes cruft is in fact cruft. What Wikipedia is not is a real policy, not just one guy's peeves. It is actually a fact that Wikipedia is not about everything and it is actually a policy to delete indiscriminate collections of trivia. The truth is, some people just don't like the fact that What Wikipedia is not is a real policy and that it's really enforced. So every time they trot out the same knee-jerk defenses: my trivia is just as good as X. Not so, and not policy. (And I say "Welcome aboard!" all editors who will join me in working to delete the hundreds of motorcycling articles that fail WP:N. I can't do it all myself.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that agree on a great deal; but not on interpretation of the value of the Marketing implications of the quoted snippets. It is one thing to be able to advertise to millions of people via a broadcast medium; but it is much more valuable when the recipients are likely to respond with a purchase. Targeting demographics is an obvious form of cost effectiveness in advertising. Fans being pleased to be retweeted builds brand loyalty. Consumer satisfaction is not a matter of opinion; it is worth too much money to be left to that. It has to be carefully surveyed, measured and verified. Social Media has an advantage over other, more traditional, forms of media in that the data comes first; we do not need satisfaction survey, but can immediately take the tweets and analyse them to see if the responses are positive or negative. The message can then be managed in real time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians would be a good place for such analysis of social media. Bieber didn't invent this social trend; he was carried along by it. Fans being pleased at being retweeted is a tautology. The story here is not anything Bieber did, it's Twitter fandom and Twitter public relations. Bieber is engaging in run of the mill behavior for any major celebrity today, and his tweets and how his fans feel about his tweets are banalities that miss the forest for the trees. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Case studies are commonly used in Marketing, and sub articles are common on Wikipedia. I doubt if Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians will ever be as good as this article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are about two paragraphs in this article that are not trivia, the definition of which is "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information". You can't tell me that even the material in "controversies", relative to the goals of this project, is not trivia. What little non-trivial content the article contains should be in other articles (do I have to name them?). Look at the first sentence of each paragraph. There are only about two that suggest non-trivial information is to follow: the first sentence in the article 'As of March 2012, Justin Bieber's Twitter account (@justinbieber) is the second most popular Twitter account' (say it in his article) and 'The size of Bieber and Lady Gaga's follower bases is cited as a reason why marketers should pay attention to Twitter' (say it in Twitter). This article is full of pointillistic sentences that tell the reader next to nothing. (Start of a paragraph: 'In March 2011 the Bieber topic trended alongside the iPad and Charlie Sheen'. Oh! Start of a paragraph: 'Bieber used the popular Twitter and Facebook photo sharing application Instagram in July 2011'. Oh! Start of a paragraph: 'For some people, including Ashton Kutcher, Twitter was their first introduction to Bieber; eventually, Bieber and Kutcher worked together on pranks.' Oh! Start of a paragraph: 'Actor Charlie Sheen attempted to send a direct message to Bieber, but failed and inadvertently revealed his number to all his Twitter followers in December 2011.' Oh!) Wikipedia is not the home for this material. Sources have been used in good faith to mush together paragraphs of random facts that have little substance or thematic connectedness, and the reason for this is that you're trying to get whatever random source material is available to you to "connect" into a larger article (synthesis). But we don't do that; it's the job of other types of writers. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! There's a first sentence in every paragraph! How "supercallipointillistic"! Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. THIS is indeed something that is not needed on Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain people can find a decent plethora of information about him in the article titled Justin Bieber...  Octavannus-Caelestis  01:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Why do we need an article on this? Why? Canuck 89 (have words with me)  01:45, July 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete  Changed to keep on the basis of the revised article; see below.  this is not supportable as a separate article, and is an entirely unjustified split. There is no reason why the very small amount of this that is acceptable content in the first place should do go in the main article.If the material was there previously, there would not even be the need to redirect to preserve attribution.   The principles are that WP IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.  NOT FANSITE. and NOT TABLOID.  I am a very strong supporter  of the full coverage of contemporary popular culture in Wikipedia. That does not mean the unlimited coverage of everything a fan can find.  Those who truly support such encyclopedic coverage should  avoid  carrying it to the extent that the non-encyclopedic coverage will make us ridiculous.  To address to my earlier comment here s, I think the removal of the junk showed there was a core that did consist of specific material to the extent suitable for an article. The tabloid & fansite  material has been removed,   DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)  DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sven. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as much as I dislike the music of his I've heard and the commerical-pop industry, the article is exceptionally well referenced, relatively few of the references are shared with related articles and there is a huge variety of sources and stories about the twitter feed and his antics on it. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Yawn. This is getting annoying. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Get over it people.  Statυs (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "yawn", since we've heard WP:ILIKEIT often enough, which is all you have to offer. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Same as for Ashton Kutcher on Twitter: Slim down, split and merge the parts into articles Justin Bieber, Twitter and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. --Bensin (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. On its own merits, the article demonstrates its notability through reliable sources. Regarding the nomination, the nominator is correct in that notability is not inherited; the article has demonstrated how the account (and Bieber's use of it) is notable in its own right. Also, other stuff exists, so this article does not set precedent or open the floodgates for articles on the Twiter accounts of all celebrities. I will concede that, in most cases, Twitter accounts shouldn't have articles. However, there is an exception to every rule, and this is an exception to that rule. Remember, not every actor has an article; only notable actors have articles. Likewise, this is notable web content and can be covered. Finally, the fact that this received Good Article status tells me that it's been reviewed; if it didn't measure up, it should've gotten screened out before. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Is this what I would choose for the encyclopedia? No.  However, my prejudices are not a good reason to delete that which receives sufficient independent, RS coverage... which this does.  One man's cruft is another man's popular culture.  GNG is met, and there's no good policy-based argument for shrinking and merging per UNDUE into the main Bieber article... although that is a pretty classic Wikilawyering way to get rid of content that some people don't like, it's not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely per User:Colapeninsula. I detect more than a slight element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT it the nomination and many of the delete comments here.  I don't like it either, but it's notable enough to have an article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep Trending topics and similar metrics are increasingly being used to track and rank events (I've noticed this on CNN broadcasts for example), for better or worse, and my impression is that Wikipedia's coverage (four paragraphs in a third-level subsection of Twitter which does not even mention news organisations) is far too scanty. This article documents, among other things, part of the evolution of this aspect of Twitter's service and thus of the internet in well-sourced detail which could not be squeezed into another article without swamping it. --Mirokado (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. We do not delete featured content arbitrarily. If you manage to delist its GA symbol, we can discuss something. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not close to being featured and will likely not be, as the FAC does not look good. --MuZemike 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fancruft. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep articles about fancruft are allowed here, when like this one they are supported by reliable references. This article is already too large to merge back to Justin Bieber article, and Wikipedia grows more useful by having more articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete same as Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. Does not belong to an encyclopedia.-- GoP T C N 07:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously, this is a WP:GNG notable topic because enough reliable sources cover it. In fact, I found more than 100+ news articles having Bieber & Twitter in the title of the news article alone, an oldest being from 26 November 2009 and a latest being 15 June 2012. Clearly, that is unusually strong evidence of separate WP:GNG notability of this subject: Bieber on Twitter: 1. History (@justinbieber), 2. Twitter usage as a communication platform (Technology, marketing and the media), and 3. Reaction (Followers and fans) (I suggest renaming the subsection headings to what I listed). Biber's first uses of Twitter was written about as early as 9 August 2009, and reliable sources have remarked on it since at least 30 July 2009. Beyond being a WP:GNG notable topic, content consensus at the B-rated Justin Bieber article is that Twitter deserves its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article. Justin Bieber on Twitter is a valid Summary style article of that Justin_Bieber subsection. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I myself am not a Twit, but I recognize that there are an awful lot of Twits out there making lots of noise in the news.   Th e S te ve   10:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete To repeat my earlier comment, I find it completely unnecessary to have a separate article. If Bieber officially teamed up with Twitter for a specific event or partnership, then that might merit its own entry. As for it being well documented, well you could do that for anything. You could document every instance of Lady Gaga's nail colour and write a lengthy and beautifully sourced article on that, featuring photos and quotes. That wouldn't make it worthy of inclusion. Bieber on Twitter isn't a subject, it's just an aspect of his life. We might just as well have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_the_lavatory Istara (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: one google news source for Lady Gaga and Nail Colur in the article title. This compares to 200+ for Justin Bieber on Twitter.  I looked for academic works on Lady Gaga's nail colour and could not find a single reference.  Clearly, the topic you cited as notable enough under WP:GNG is not notable.  Besides which, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is neither a reason to keep nor delete.  Can you provide a more clear explanation?  Are you advocating WP:IAR per WP:IDONTLIKEIT to ignore the WP:GNG and WP:RS clearly established based on the content already found in Justin Bieber on Twitter? --LauraHale (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This thing is about as GNG-"notable" and as encyclopedic as Michelle Obama's arms, and should meet the same fate. T. Canens (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like WP:ASSERTN- can you expand a bit on your thoughts as to where the notability is lacking, preferably with regard to the reliable sources mentioned? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that you can bring in dozens of sources and argue that this thing passes GNG, just as you can bring in dozens of sources and argue that Michelle Obama's arms passes GNG (the deleted article has a whopping 12 sources from major newspapers). We don't have an article for everything that technically passes the GNG, and we should not have one here. T. Canens (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete None of these celebrities-on-Twitter pages are really notable. The fact that there are a good deal of sources here does not make the topic notable in and of itself and this could easily be covered on either the Justin Bieber page or the Twitter page.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, Although its well written and well sourced, it seems pointless and fancruft. Does not belong to an encyclopedia, Wikia should have it however. I means its just...Odd. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd
 * Delete; a dumping ground for redundant, trivial, or otherwise non-notable gossip that would rightly be removed by any experienced editors from the main article. There's endless policies, guidelines and essays which I can quote from. Policies include: WP:NOT, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, Neutral_point_of_view, WP:NOTEVERYTHING etc.--Otterathome (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If you google x celebrity and any other social networking platform the results tend to be rather dull and routine details. Were you to google x celebrity and Twitter you tend to find most are dull and routine coverage. A few instances bring up a substantial amount of articles about how x celebrity said something angry or did something stupid on Twitter. However, Bieber is one of those very select few that gets a great deal of independent coverage about him being on Twitter and his effect on Twitter. Bieber's activity on Facebook or any other social media I have checked does not even come close to the attention directed towards his Twitter activity. Of the three celebrity on Twitter articles we have, I think the Gaga one is actually the weakest and the one I would be most likely to vote delete on (though I would probably go for a merge) and I actually like the Gaga.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all good, but look at the sources typically used, twitter itself as a primary source, guide books about twitter/social media, Mashable, Daily Mail. You remove all the junk food news and unnecessary details, it'll fit into the main article.--Otterathome (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So why, pray tell, are you voting delete? Is Bieber's Twitter account name not an obvious search term? Appears to me there are far too many people voting delete when they mean merge, which would make people voting keep such as myself at least feel like this isn't going to erase the hard work of other editors on a subject that is not covered sufficiently in the suggested target of a merge.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I still don't see a reason how this ought to be a topic separate from Bieber, sourcing, GA, and other statuses notwithstanding. There is plenty of room in that article for a summary of the salient points which, as I've demonstrated earlier, easily fit in a single paragraph. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is quite crufty, tabloid and not particularly encyclopedic. What little that is worth mentioning is surely already in the Justin Bieber article.  Forking content this way makes Wikipedia look like "The Fan Site That Anyone Can Edit!" and I just can't see where in policy that this is supported.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  17:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact is that we do not have a policy that clearly prohibits this type of subject and none of the guidelines appear to forbid it. Obviously, that doesn't mean it should be kept, but it does mean people should stop citing policy as a reason for deleting. Arguments should, instead, be based on whether the subject or something closely resembling the subject is "worthy of notice" to a broader audience. Does Bieber's use of Twitter meet some threshold of significance that goes beyond the routine use by public figures? Has his activity been the cause of unique interest that goes beyond an interest in the general activity of the artist? I believe that the answer to those questions is yes and have noted sources above that lead me to believe that. Thus I think the subject is worthy of an independent article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I respect your opinion, but disagree with it, as this is something I've thought about long before this AFD. WP:NOT is an actual policy and applies here, as others have also noted. We can discuss the minutia of each references, but in the end, it is many things that Wikipedia is not.  It might be well written, well sourced and well meaning, but that doesn't exempt it.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  20:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge This is obviously a spinoff/split from the main articles about Justin Bieber and Twitter. Both of those articles are big enough (62K, 110K) that it's reasonable to do this for reasons of size.  And, if we should want to consolidate this material, our editing policy would be to merge rather than delete so that further editing is not disrupted by the placing of content where only admins can see it.  The arguments against the topic seem to be personal expressions of dislike for it and deletion for this reason would be contrary to policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR.  We have numerous other fine-grained celebrity topics such as Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama, personal relationships of Elvis Presley, reality distortion field, The Beckham Experiment, &c.  There is no policy-based reason to discriminate against this one. Warden (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or merge per Dennis Brown. It's not inherently an unencyclopedic subject, but the fact it is so badly written and fancrufty indicates it could easily be cut by around 90% without any real loss of content, at which point it could me merged back into the main Justin Bieber article. As regards its GA status, I think there are some problems with that assessment which will need to be addressed in a different venue. --John (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC) See later note. --John (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes, John--on the writing and the review. I've addressed the first at various moments in various discussions but that was nothing but a cry in the desert; I've tried to edit it for improvement but that proved a daunting if not hopeless task given the long enumerations of minutiae, and no other editors or reviewers were willing to assist in that. I have addressed quality issues in this review, for instance, and you'll find that I was just about the only one to edit for style and correctness, and that it got promoted to DYK long before it was finished properly. Moreover, the GA review was done by someone who shouldn't have been reviewing for GA (see this, for instance, and this, plus all my associated edits to the article). I wonder how many of the editors who say "it's a GA so it should stay" (which doesn't mean anything anyway) have actually perused the article and the review. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I find WP:RUBBISH says that article writing quality is not a reason to have the article deleted. Also oddly, WP:ATTP also appears to be an invalid argument for deletion in as much as you appear to be saying the DYK and GA reviewers not meeting your standards are not good enough.  While at it, WP:TRIVCOV that people have been citing as a reason also doesn't hold much water because it says "significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required" and book references and academic references that are being cited as trivial do not prove significant coverage.  I'm still not seeing a policy based reason to delete it.  (And it isn't comparable to Michelle Obama's arms given the sources available and the multi year coverage and the clear INDEPENDENT coverage beyond Bieber demonstrated in the article.)--LauraHale (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not odd at all, and you'll find also that I didn't argue for deletion because it's rubbish (I don't think it's that bad). What I am countering is the argument that it should stay because it's a GA. You seem to be misreading John's argument: that the article can easily be cut by 90% and then/thus easily merged, an argument I agree with. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and gut it, after which a merge may be more reasonable. I've just gone through and copyedited about half the article the entire article dear god, someone kill me now, since it was in dire need, and there is a kernel of useful, notable content here. The trouble is that it's all wrapped up in some pretty incoherent writing, with sentences on the same sub-topic scattered to the four winds throughout the article and a severe lack of the judicious pruning that goes into turning a draft article into a reasonable live article. Each of the sections of this article could, I think, be very easily halved (or more), with no loss of important information, and the result would be a better article that doesn't appear so crufty and, well, laughable to so many readers. If, after a re-drafting and gutting along those lines, it's still long enough or contains enough content for a stand-alone article, great. If not, merge it back into Justin Bieber and Twitter, variously. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * DELETE with extreme prejudice merge any truly encyclopedic information to an article such as Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and delete as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire. This is an encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete it. Hard. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Evanh2008 (talk 05:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per William Thweatt - the article is not even remotely encyclopedic. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with water. This is an encyclopedia. DeansFA (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - This is an encyclopedia, not Twitterpedia. This is just a collection of indiscriminate information that has no notability separate from the original topic. DreamGuy (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Source analysis

 * Comment: As there are comments on the quality of the sourcing, I have created the table below which demonstrates the wide scope of sourcing (newspapers, online news, radio, conferences, academic papers, books, magazines) covering a wide time arrange (2009-2012) with the primary topic as either Bieber or Twitter. Please bare in mind: These sources ONLY reflect the sources found in the article and not ALL available sources.  The purpose of this table is to demonstrate how as an independent topic, Justin Bieber on Twitter passes both Organisation notability, as a daughter article of a person article notability, and passes the web notability guidelines for article notability. --LauraHale (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. None of those sources are about the subject of this article. Arcandam (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I pity the fool who has to close this AfD entry..... -- Ritchie333  (talk)  23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll bet you ten bucks it'll be no consensus, and if it ends in "delete" and I lose ten bucks I will gladly PayPal you the money. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If that happens we may have to trout, desysop and retrout. Arcandam (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment 1)This isn't about Twitter separately or Justin Bieber separately, it's specifically about Justin Bieber on Twitter]]. That table of sources is meaningless (or WP:Synthesis at best) without a "Bieber on Twitter as the primary topic" column. 2)This article and the ones like it are the worst form of pop-culture presentism on WP. Just because something is popular (i.e. talked about a lot) doesn't make it Wikipedia notable. Twitter is the current social media fad.  To put it in perspective, it will be irrelevant in 100 years (or sooner *cough* MySpace *cough*). I'm sure "Abraham Lincoln on the Telegraph" was a popular story or the first politician to use Robocalling got a lot of press, or how about "Elvis on the Home Telephone"? Our guidelines say "notability is not temporary". Logic dictates that since the popularity/usage/relevance of Bieber on Twitter is temporary, it is not notable.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am very disappointed to see this argument, because it mis-states at least two of wikipedia's policies, which means that you probably haven't read them. WP:Synthesis is all about using source A + Source B to come to conclusion C.  This is not the case here, so it does not apply.  I will oversimplify for those of you who do not follow:  Source A (about JB) says: JB is popular on Twitter.  Source B (about Twit) says:  JB is a popular Twit and has X followers.  Our article says: JB is popular on Twitter, quoting A and B.  It is not synthesis, or original research, and the sources aren't bad, or misused, or wrong.
 * Notability is not temporary says exactly the opposite of your argument above. From WP:GNG: "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."  This means once notable, always notable.  In other words, if it gets RS coverage for just a short period of time, it is notable, and it is so forever.  Please don't quote policies arguing that they mean the opposite of what they actually say.
 * For all of you who want to delete, all your arguments (too trivial, fancruft, etc) come down to one thing: I don't like it. There is no policy-based reason to delete, and, unfortunately for the deleters, this article passes ALL WP policies and guidelines with flying colours.   Th e S te ve   05:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Do you really believe that? Did you check which of those sources are about the subject of this article? Arcandam (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources do not have to be about the subject of the article. Again, from WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  If your source supports what you write, the headline is more or less irrelevant.  Are you really not aware of this??   Th e S te ve   08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources further establishing notability

 * Comment: Because I worry the table above conveyed notability only based on the sources in the table and based on other comments that appear to demonstrate people are not looking at sources as they pertain to notability. The AVAILABLE sources also go towards explaining relevance more for some of the topics included. The level of coverage also helps argue against WP:FANCRUFT because they show the scope of publications commenting: It is beyond Bieber fans.  (I really don't have the time to format the several thousand sources here that demonstrate notability but hoepfully, the sources encourage people to look at them.) --LauraHale (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Radio


 * Newspaper article


 * Magazines


 * News wires


 * If you take some time to read some of the sources you'll notice a lot of 'em are used in violation of Trivial mentions cannot verify notability and WP:PUFFERY and WP:UNDUE. Your attempt at impressing us has failed, look at the amount of reliable sources that write about Michelle Obama's arms. Arcandam (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Weak and fairly sickly keep. The fact that Bieber has more followers than anyone else on twitter (and isn't it usually written with a lowercase 't'?) is interesting and perhaps worthy of recording somewhere in the 'pedia. I think some, or a lot of trimming is needed here; this article seems confused as to its scope, and doesn't need quite so many examples of the various gems that Justin has twat over the years. pablo 13:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a principle at play here which I admittedly haven't been able to put my finger on. There's a lot of discussion on this page about sources, and wow can we find a lot of sources about Justin Bieber on twitter. I think we have to go deeper than that to ascertain notability. Here, I facetiously suggested we needed Justin Bieber on YouTube and Justin Bieber on Facebook. Bieber was discovered on YouTube and his channel is a top 50 channel. Tons of notability, right? As for Facebook, his presence there is a top tenner. Again, tons of notability, right? is the line merely that we need sources? Well, in that case why not an article titled Lady Gaga and her shoes. Hell, there are tons of sources on the subject. Is there a difference here with these type of articles and the recently featured article Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle? I think we must view the former cases through the lens of Recentism. That's where I think the issue lies. 30 years from now, will Bieber's presence on twitter be anything more than a foot note to his entire career? We don't know the answer to that. What we do know the answer to is that as of now, his presence on twitter is of no particular historical significance, and therefore is not encyclopedic. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice against adding some of this material into the respective articles about Bieber and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Rationale is simple: Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections of information, and the various splits and related sections (WP:NOTTABLOID, WP:NOTFANSITE) of/from that policy. Need explanation? Let's do an in-depth analysis of section @justinbieber.
 * First paragraph: a sentence establishing the owner of the account; next, a confusing quote that, TBH, I could not understand; then Bieber is a Twitter addict; lastly, Bieber tweets a lot.
 * Second paragraph: Bieber joined on a certain date, and his mother is name-dropped; his early tweets were on XYZ, nowadays he sometimes makes random comments; he quit once; he jokes, and people believe him; another quote based on an odd, unexplained analogy.
 * Third paragraph: Beiber tweets about many things, then we have a list of about 10 completely unrelated topics that Bieber has apparently tweeted on (e.g., Arab Spring, Kony2012, bungee jumping, spiritual references, texting, haters, himself). Sure, these are all ostensibly examples of the "broad range of subjects" that he tweets about, but let's be honest: this is just a way to list a bunch of tiny facts that Beiber has, at some point in his life, devoted nearly three sentences to.
 * Fourth paragraph: Bieber has fans, and sometimes follows them. Then we have no less then a dozen random factoids of only minimally significant and connected information that I won't list here.
 * I challenge anyone to find more than five sentences in that entire section that are absolutely necessary to an article about Bieber and Twitter. It's all ..... just ..... trivia. This article has become a collection of the same, and so I believe that WP:NOT overrules the abundance of sources covering his WP:FARTS.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many others have said it better, but I can only echo their sentiments. This article is mostly a collection of trivia and some stats. It's not very encyclopedic. It's not very educational. I believe it's covered by WP:NOT. I think all the useful information, which probably amounts to a paragraph or two, can be saved and placed in the Justin Beiber and Celebrities on Twitter articles. OohBunnies!   (talk)  16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral - As I read the article here, Justin Bieber hasn't done significant things by using Twitter, such as philantrophy. This article suffers from too much recentism. Also, "keep"-ers said that this topic meets WP:GNG. However, from what I see, only news sources were used. Even academic journals have only statistics of this account. If only he uses Twitter for other things, such as Impact and philantrophy, as Ashton Kutcher did in the past... --George Ho (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – All the information in the article should be put into a single section on Justina Beaver called '@justinbieber'. The information should be condensed into 2 or 3 paragraphs about his account on Twitter and put onto the article. The current article is just bloated and has too much unnecessary information on the subject, which should be only 2-3 paragraphs long... – Plarem (User talk) 19:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropropriate WP:POVFORK giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:INDISCRIMINATE detailed trivial aspects of his biography. Siawase (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per OohBunnies. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 22:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: on the off chance that it affects anyone's !vote, here is a beginning of what I see as the keepable basis of the article, with the cruft starting to get peeled away to reveal the bones. There's something to work with here, imho, if we can actually manage to do the working. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, largely as per Jclemens and Sven. I'm tired of arguments based on "not encyclopaedic" because what they are really based on is a 19th century view that ensures that articles such as this wouldn't make it into publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. From our own Encyclopedia comes a definition of "...together, the phrase literally translates as "complete instruction" or "complete knowledge"", and in this case, a well-sourced article about how one of the world's most recognisable personalities uses one of the world's best-known social media tools has to fit within "complete knowledge". On a different note, WP is desperate to attract new editors, and it can do no harm to promote the view that we are willing to entertain articles relevant to the 21st century (that the Britannica wouldn't be caught dead publishing). GFHandel &#9836; 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason the Britannica wouldn't be caught dead publishing something like this (I am glad we agree on that part of this sentence) is because the Britannica is a serious encyclopaedia. Arcandam (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets wp:gng for general notability and wp:web and wp:org for subject matter notability, as the sources are extensive, reliable, and third party. This article's content is like our extensive collection of articles on noted individual blogs or websites (we even cover that long defunct Nupedia site). The deletes all seem non-policy based around WP:BELONG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: This article clearly passes GNG. You can't just delete an article, because you don't like the topic; which I fear is the rationale behind many delete votes.  TRLIJC19 ( talk ) 03:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, after all thought, Delete . Amount of notability of this topic is irrelevant. Whether it meets WP:GNG, WP:notability (web), or any other notability rule is no longer an issue. Instead, this article is about Justin Bieber on Twitter. Clearly, it is a recap of what Justin did on Twitter told by news sources, which is against WP:IINFO, which also included non-fictional works, such as this topic. In policy, fiction or nonfiction, all works should include significant viewpoints or commentary mainly about the account and Bieber themselves together. This article... well, it is duplicated from Justin Bieber with some additional stuff, like stats, that do not suffice encyclopedic value. Without reaction, like "Justin is a liar" from some newspaper critic, where can we find such analysis or review? --George Ho (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete OMG, Wikipedia is getting bad.-- JOJ Hutton  03:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - I have added a reassessment request on this article's status as Good Article. Nevertheless, neither individual nor community reassessment has yet been created. Go to Talk:Justin Bieber on Twitter and create either. Preferably, with an anger here, community is needed. Also, FAC nom is closed as failure. --George Ho (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the FAC nomination. It was not closed as failure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More - I have created Good article reassessment/Justin Bieber on Twitter/1, but it's not a majority vote, and voting is not allowed there. Nevertheless, make your arguments when you can. --George Ho (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For a number of reasons:
 * 1. The topic has no enduring notability.
 * 2, One of the keep votes stated: This is obviously a spinoff/split from the main articles about Justin Bieber and Twitter, which sounds a lot like stating that this article is a cross-categorization. Per WP:NOTDIR Cross-categorizations are very often non-encyclopedic.
 * 3. Claims that the article article clearly passes GNG' sound like following of rules despite the intention of the rules, per WP:IAR they can be ignored if it violates the spirit of why we have GNG. Just because we have sources talking about something doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. In fact many of the keep voters appear to acknowledge that the topic is not encyclopedic: "Is this what I would choose for the encyclopedia? No."
 * 4. The argument that "The article has many reliable sources, very specifically the claims in national newspapers that he is the second most popular celebrity Twitter user (presumably in the world?), which counts as notable in my book", is the same as arguing that J.K Rowling on Books is notable.
 * 5. Arguments based on "Refers to something involving millions of people and millions of dollars" seem to be a non-argument for a deletion discussion. Popularity doesn't make something encyclopedic
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is it? I don't understand what you mean - that sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is an obvious cultural phenomenon happening here with modern youth that is interesting to witness. Although I'm a hair's breadth away of changing my vote to Oh, you know, who really gives a monkeys? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  10:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) this comment was in response to point 4, I've moved it out from in between my points. IRWolfie- (talk)
 * This sort of Bieber on twitter article is the same as dedicating an article to some aspect of any major personality about pretty much any arbitrary part of their life, see for some examples given. Yes sources might exist, but it's not truly encyclopedic, merely indiscriminate. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I think plenty of people have spoken as to why. Sarah (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Media attention establishes notability. Everyking (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is the fancruft drift that we have to keep out of the project. Celebrities get an inordinate amount of coverage over what they wear, where they eat, and who they fuck.  Just because the media has discussed Bieber twittering, it is just a form of communication, and people here are confusing what the person says (possibly notable) with the means of communication (not notable).  Bieber, or any other celeb, twittering with fans is worth a few lines in his bio, not this massive dump of trivial information and twitter-minutiae. Tarc (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and integrate summary section to Justin Bieber and Twitter. Supporters of retention of this article are appealing too literally to the policy regarding the existence of reiable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources that mention JB and his tweets, but as a standalone subject of an article, it just doesn't fly. Someone mentioned the race for #1 between JB and Gaga. Well, next year it will between someone else, and yet another person; next decade, no-one will remember these people. The reliable sources will exist forever, but the encyclopedic content belongs in the context of JB himself or, more intriguingly perhaps, in the article on Twitter itself. But not this stand-alone article. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete - Fails to meet notability requirements for an independent article, and works much better as a component of the main Justin Bieber article. Any article that mentions Bieber's Twitter activity demonstrates his notability, not the notability of a particular element of his behavior. If we make articles about specific behaviors of celebrities notable, there's a whole list of things that could be included Tom Cruise jumping the couch, Oprah giving away cars, Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "Hasta la vista", Bushisms, etc. Nathan  T 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (I know I !voted above, just trying to brainfart a line of thought - not sure where it will go): We have the article Grass (the green stuff that grows outside, eaten by cows), with many references showing its notability (and I think that no-one disagrees). We also have the article Green (the colour, the one between yellow and blue on the rainbow), also there many references showing its notability (and again, I think no-one disagrees that the article is about something notable).  So, the logic extension is Grass is green needs an own article, that must also be notable.  Naturally, there are many references showing that most forms of grass are green, about the chlorophyll that gives it its colour, etc. etc.  So, seen that that article would have a lot of references, must mean that it is notable and worthy of an article ... no-one can claim that it is original research, a particular point-of-view (maybe someone who is colour-blind can, but well).  The bottom line: We only have articles when the subject is notable, but not every fact that is notable is worthy of an own article.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I also think that the comparison is off. Does the color of grass have any independent significance from the color of other plants that would make it of particular interest to people looking intio biological pigments? That sort of question is what we need to seriously examine here. Lots of celebrities are on social media, for sure, and there are plenty of other social media where Bieber is active. However, that fact alone should not guide anyone's opinion. Does Bieber's activity on Twitter stand out in a way his activity on other social media or a way that the activity of other celebrities on Twitter does not? I say that answer is yes.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. 'Does Bieber's activity on Twitter stand out in a way his activity on other social media or a way that the activity of other celebrities on Twitter does not? I say that answer is yes.' - now, if you can find reliable sources stating that that is the case .. we might get somewhere, otherwise that question will be quite original research. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic receives consistent, excessive mainstream attention. Additionally, Beiber's activity on twitter has been subject to legal discourse and the fervour of his fans has compelled advertising companies to look to twitter. It has a lasting impact in the field of social media and advertising. Additionally, using IAR as a rebuttal to an article passing GNG is an obvious application of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Smallman12q (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's well-written and very well-sourced, so that'll do for me. (COI disclaimer: crush on the original author of the article.) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quality of old and new doesn't matter as much as value of this article itself. Quality looks fine, but... value? Ty Russell article looks small, but its topic may have some value. This Twitter article... has no encyclopedic value; it doesn't explain why topic is generally significant. It doesn't explain general analysis on Bieber's exploitation of Twitter. It says that events made account newsworthy, which doesn't suffice. How can good quality of an article overcome bad value of a topic? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like solid standards like verifiability rather than arbitrary, subjective ones like "value of topic". But we don't gain anything from arguing that one. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 12:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

After rewrite

 * Note: Article has now been significantly rewritten. Per consensus on the article's talk page, I've sent my rewrite of this article live. I'd appreciate if people would take a few minutes to check over the new version and see if their !votes remain the same or if they want to change them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah .. still delete - I still think that the whole concept is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Polishing a turd doesn't make it into a diamond. A rewrite cannot address the crux of the calls for deletion, that the entire concept of a "person on twitter" article is bad. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it looks good for a user sandbox. Still "delete" for me. --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Better. Thanks.  Keep rewrite. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong delete What's next, Justin Bieber's website? His cellphone usage?  Twitter is a mere communication platform, and people and businesses use it for the same purpose, and mostly in the same manner.  There are very few *notable* ways of using it, and this sure is not one.  A paragraph of possibly *useful* stuff may belong on the main twitter article, but not here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter has closed as delete. Assuming this closes the same, it should be end of "celebX on twitter" articles, such content can just be put into the subject's main article.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it cannot. If closed as WP:NOT, then such material will be absolutely prohibited on Wikipedia, even in the celeb's article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hawkeye, I think you are totally wrong. The close there using NOT INDISCRIMNATE,with which I agree, was saying that making a separate topic of this was indiscriminate coverage. Many things too insignificant to make a full article can nonetheless be part of article content. Your statement, that nothing about a person's use or popularity in twitter, can ever be part of the content of a Wikipedia article, is a gross overextension of the meaning of the policy.   DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there is any useful material, apart from trivia, in this article it can be incorporated into the main subject artcile. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that Fluffer and I have trimmed it (by around 50%, not the 90% I rather hyperbolically proposed) I think it could be kept. --John (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reaffirm delete While I appreciate the efforts of Fluffer and John and the new page is indeed improved, it still doesn't meed policy such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:NOT. An article can be good in appearance but that doesn't mean it is notable.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Controversy" section is a retelling of events. Every where I see in this article is a bloated retelling of everyday life that doesn't fit general needs of a reader. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still Delete A rewrite doesn't address the issues at hand, namely the conflation of "fleeting popularity" with WP "notability" and the issues of pop-culture presentism. Pare it down and merge it into the Beiber article and/or the Celebrity use of Twitter article.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 22:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- while editing the controversy section further or removing it entirely (I have particular doubts about the 4th item). To the extent Bieber has continuing significance, this will be a part of it. Things can be important for a while , and once so, they remain of encyclopedic notability forever, because an encyclopedia is a permanent record.   I congratulate fluffernutter, John, and anyone else who participated in making an article out of this. I did not think it could be done.   DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Still delete The rewrite is an improvement, but I think it could be further trimmed and maybe some merged. I don't think it truly merits independent notability. Most of it is just trivia still though. Many sources exist for Bieber on TV, should we have an article on Bieber on TV ? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * that it could be further improved is not reason for deletion. Essentially every Wikipedia article could be further improved.  DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not saying that this was my reason for delete. My reason is that is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIR. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per the closing rationale on the "Ashton Kutcher on Twitter" AfD. We need to nip this in the bud. Articles on notable celebrities are fine, but sub-articles on every detail of the celebrity's life are unneeded.  Otherwise, we could have Justin Bieber's relationship with Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber haircut (now a redirect to haircut), Justin Bieber Fan Club, Justin Bieber on YouTube, Justin Bieber's views on Christianity, Justin Bieber on Instagram, Justin Biber's 2012 wardrobe, etc.  All have received extensive press coverage, but none merit separate articles. Cbl62 (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Even stronger Delete upon review, this is just a great example of what Wikipedia is NOT particularly TRIVIA and INDISCRIMINATE not to mention NOT DIARY.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other website. Its get ample coverage, not just for the activities of his on it, but for the twitter account itself.  And getting "180 million page views per month" is fairly notable.    D r e a m Focus  01:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft that is clearly against the policy WP:NOT. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Although this article isn't my favorite, I want to take this chance to say rather directly that there is no reason to believe this article violates either the letter or the spirit of WP:IINFO in any way that justifies this AfD. 150.35.244.246 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There has been no book exclusively about Bieber' twitter usage. Websites can be notable, but having an article about a twitter account, doesn't sounds good. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's lots of things that have articles and don't have books written about them (Angels on horseback, anyone?). That's not a valid reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not "fancruft" nor a collection of tweets; but a well-sourced and scholarly work by an editor working on a doctorate in social media. I fear for the fate of articles like Barack Obama if any article can be described as a collection of information. This is a misuse of WP:IINFO. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the AfD for Ashton Kutcher on Twitter it becomes obvious that that person is very arrogant and not as smart as xe thinks xe is. This has more to do with the devaluation of doctorates, but that is offtopic. Arcandam (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please remove this as it sounds like a personal attack. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Xe still has to redact a couple of false statements about me. Xe has also made a false accusation against a person I love which need to be redacted. But this is all offtopic. Arcandam (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: As the consensus here will likely show that this is a notable topic, other imaginary articles are irrelevant. If the claim is WP:NOT, consensus will have to show that this article falls within that policy, as nothing in that policy requires deletion of notable topics. (particularly since twitter account related articles exist, see eg. Shit My Dad Says) (Also, note its possible that unintentional double votes are likely in this section, it would probably be best to label such things as Comment)Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As the consensus here will likely show that this is not a notable topic, Shit My Dad Says is notable as a twitter account and Bieber as a celebrity, other imaginary articles are relevant. For instance: "Justin Bieber on Youtube". Plenty of reliable sources. Still not a good topic to write an article about. We are building an serious encyclopaedia. Arcandam (talk) 13:51, 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. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This argument is difficult to understand when Charles Lamb is a subject but so is Letters of Charles Lamb; and Jack Benny is a subject but so is The Jack Benny Show; and Samuel Johnson is a subject but so is Life of Samuel Johnson. Articles exist because they are discrete topics, no matter how famous the public figure is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What? These examples were published into paper and shows. These articles you mentioned have a general overview and balance, as well as significant history of publication and critical commentary. Obama-Twitter article, on the other hand, requires balance, which is absent, and a significant viewpoint, which I tagged for such. --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the famous person point but as you note articles are improved over time.Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops... my mistake: Bieber-Twitter also needs balance, which is lacking here. --George Ho (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, note the different communication mediums involved (letter, book, radio, TV), just like this is a different communications medium. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCASE says "This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest." Per the arguments I have given above I say this subject easily satisfies that standard.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What "phenomenon"? What "notable interest"? Popularity? Controversial decisions by the celebrity? I don't see any philantrophy or political campaign. There aren't any reviews in general, either. What more can it be explained or excluded from this article? --George Ho (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable.' For what it's worth: I think the third of those would be a no-go due to WP:BLP issues, but the first two would probably be perfectly acceptable as articles, if anyone cared enough to collect the sources and write them. Robofish (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Collective Reply: The principle at play is WP:NOT. The whole purpose of WP:NOT is to say "notability isn't everything". (If it were, then we wouldn't need WP:NOT.) WP:CASESTUDY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTDIARY all exist to say "just because something has third-party sources about it, it doesn't mean we create a stand-alone article about it". Notability isn't enough by itself.
 * It's actually very easy to see the principle at play when you use the examples from Alan Scott Walker. Wikipedia often has articles about public figures, and Wikipedia also has articles about published works centered on those figures. That includes notable biographies like Life of Samuel Johnson, broadcast television programs named after people such as The Jack Benny Program, and historic letters such as Letters of Charles Lamb.
 * What we don't do is create a theoretically infinite number of subarticles like "Jack Benny's romantic life" or "Samuel Johnson's hobbies", even if there were a way to synthesize these topics from lots of published material. We cover these in a myriad of other ways, generally as part of another article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete it, and slam the door on it on the way out. I know I'm just reiterating what others have said here, but what a pop singer says online is unencyclopedic, let alone warranting of its own article. If your interested in somebody's Tweets, then do you A) read the person's Tweets or B) read about the Tweets on Wikipedia? I have a feeling almost everybody answers "A". The people who want to keep this page can rewrite it a million times for all I care, but the truth is it is what Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a directory, and is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is verifiable and well-sourced doesn't make it suitable for inclusion at Wikipedia. As somebody said above, this is gonna be a tough AfD to close. Does anybody know if we can get Jimbo to close it? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * His charitable work, such as with charity: water, is mentioned. His raising awareness of the Arab Spring is discussed. And you do not seem to understand AfD. AfD is not about content; articles can be improved. A stub article does not get deleted merely because it is a stub. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, AFD is also about value of the content. No matter how you add or exclude some content, Good Article or not, execution of the topic is poor. That's all. --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is not a summary of a book, it is not a collection of lyrics, and it is not a list of statistics. In other words, it does not satisfy any of the criterea for WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need Jimbo at the moment, I think the admin who closes this debate will have enough clue to make the right decision. See Articles_for_deletion/Ashton_Kutcher_on_Twitter, a good decision with sound reasoning behind it. Arcandam (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My thing about Jimbo was supposed to be a joke. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of sound reasoning is discussed at User_talk:Scottywong Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. Arcandam (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite. Also, the lack of understanding by some editors here does not make the reasoning unsound.  If ever there was a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE then  on Twitter is a classic example.  If the subject of the article actually did something of note through using their Twitter account, then that action itself may be a subject for a possible article if it's not appropriate to just include it in the main article.  Twitter is just a medium of communication, do we have article on individual people's use of the telephone?  That celebrities, especially young ones, use Twitter is no surprise and not noteworthy without some other compelling circumstances clearly lacking here. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  00:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you all suggesting that I don't understand WP:INDISCRIMINATE? The common interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and the one I accept) is that the examples given there are EXAMPLES of indiscriminate collections of information that should not be included. Perhaps something along the lines of " on " should be added to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as another example? (Of course, that discussion should not take place here.) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I am not arguing that the examples in WP:INDISCRIMINATE are an exhaustive list, completely the opposite.  You might like to re-read my post a little more carefully. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  01:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know we're on the same side here: I may have misunderstood you to say that I and others lack understanding BUT have sound reasoning, when in fact I do understand the policies. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was not clear. My response was meant to be a direct reply in agreement with Arcandam regarding his responsse of WP:IDHT and WP:STICK to HHawkeye7's post.  I meant it to be in support of your rationale for closing the other discussion and an endorsement that you are IMHO correctly interpreting policy (particularly WP:INDISCRIMINATE). I guess I just sometiimes tend to get a bit baroque in my writing style. -  Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  07:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The confusion may have been my fault due to unclear indenting, mea culpa, those two links are in response to Hawkeye7. Arcandam (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. I can see this content being of use to the relevant biography but not as a fork; the level of sourcing indicates that a reasonably-sized article could be written for Beiber's use of other internet media individually too, which to me seems unduly weighted towards his use of Twitter (my own personal misgivings for the site aside, it shouldn't be treated as a stand-in for all internet-based promotion). A broader article along the lines of Justin Beiber and social media, Promotion of Justin Beiber, etc, that focuses not on one outlet but on the wider use of media to promote a singer would probably have much greater merit, though given the relative size of this article and the parent article I'm not sure a fork is even necessary at this stage over a direct merge into Justin Beiber. GRAPPLE   X  03:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies despite the fact that it does not explicitly preclude factoid lists. There is an enormous number of references and an enormous load of discussion so it is hard to be sure, but it seems there is no secondary source on the actual topic (that is, the significance of Bieber's Twitter account). Anyone writing about Bieber is going to mention his tweets, and anyone talking about big accounts at Twitter is going to mention Bieber—those are reasons for a mention in the respective articles on Bieber and on Twitter, but they are not reasons for editors to choose commentary to conclude that someone's tweets are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey, wait a minute - Jimmy Wales is notable, and so is The Reichstag. Perhaps we could have ... oh, hang on a minute .... -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - pretty clearly a notable topic, as shown by the extensive analysis of the sources further up. Yes, 99% of Twitter accounts aren't notable, but this one is. Merging into Justin Bieber would seem a bad idea, as that article's pretty long already. I have to say I feel a lot of the 'delete' opinions in this AFD basically come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Robofish (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I do agree with Grapple X's suggestion above that it might be more appropriate to rework this article into a broader one on Justin Bieber in social media. That would address people's complaints that it singles out Twitter unjustifiably. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Honestly that seems like WP:ILIKEIT when the delete side has made a very compelling case that WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to this article.  Toa   Nidhiki05  16:01, 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  /  17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As a complete aside, I was listening to Radio 2 a few nights back and Pete Waterman was on, discussing the "good old days" of "classic pop". 25 years ago, had Wikipedia existed, we could have been having exactly the same "unencyclopedic" arguments about Rick Astley and his videos, moaning about how music today just "isn't what it used to be". Now, in 2012, it's been held in fond regard as "classic pop". The sad fact is, you're old. It happens. In 2037, there'll be a flood of people moaning about how modern pop just isn't like the "good old days" of Justin Bieber. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument seems oddly familiar. You basically just went to these two AfDs and copy-pasted this argument. Please provide a perspective that suggests you actually examined the merits of the case.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather dickish of you, honestly. Fetchcomms is an well-established editor here, and if he believes that AfDs on similar topics warrant the exact same response, then one shouldn't jump to bad conclusions that the user failed to read up on the matter beforehand. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think telling someone to assume good faith and then call them a dick in the same sentence is a bit below the belt. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  19:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The part of AGF that most seem to forget is "clear evidence to the contrary", and explicitly saying "you didn't read the merits of the case" is a clear sign of bad faith. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking someone to provide a perspective suggesting they examined the merits of the case is not the same as saying they didn't. It also doesn't imply bad faith. Someone may make a blanket, biased judgment about the validity of an article topic completely in good faith. That doesn't imbue the argument with any validity.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ritchie333: I'm not old. Nor is this about music. It's about encyclopedic relevance. I think that Bieber's Twitter account may well be considered notable in the future. That's what I meant when I said that the line is blurred because of new media's prominence in society. But at this time, I consider Twitter accounts to be trivial and unencyclopedic topics. We didn't allow YouTube "celebrities" some years ago as much as we do now, because YouTube's influence has grown and along with it, the notability of those people. The Devil's Advocate: I did copy-paste the argument. The argument is not based on the merits of this article. In fact, the whole point is to say that this article has no encyclopedic merit, and nor does any article on a similar topic. So many thanks for stating what I already knew&mdash;that my rationale applies to any celebrity Twitter account article. Regardless, I did skim through both articles before participating in their respective discussions, and found nothing that justifies their encyclopedicness. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  22:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I meant "you're old", I didn't mean specifically "you", just anyone older than Bieber's target market. What's really depressing is I've just found out I'm older than his mother :-( -- Ritchie333  (talk)  22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not the place for a trivial actions article on anyone WP:NOTTWITTER.Moxy (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That policy is not even remotely applicable here, it is about an entirely different type of content.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry your right my bad .. wrong link...new link to same page WP:NOTDIARY.Moxy (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand why there hasn't been a merge proposal.  Every single delete argument basically comes down to the fact that the scope of this article is too narrow.  I don't disagree.  So why has no-one suggested a merge to an article with a wider scope?  Justin Beiber, Justin Beiber in new media, Justin Beiber in social media?  Anyone?   Th e S te ve   03:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You might have missed Talk:Justin Bieber. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per fluffernutter, who has done a very good job of trimming and rewriting the article to making it appear more encyclopedic, and less of an indiscriminate assortment of tweets. The topic has received sufficient media coverage for a separate article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete & merge Wikipedia should not have articles detailing celebrity activities on a social media websites. It lessons the credibility of the site as a whole. There is no guarantee he will remain the most followed use on twitter, nor does this warrant a separate article outside of the twitter or JB articles. What he does or does not do on twitter is not really relevant to anything. He's not a politician, his opinion on arab spring is not notable. His use of twitter to talk to fans is not in anyway unique, or notable. I see no reason to include an article of this size except for his own fan support and pr purposes. It's very promotional. At best, the information contained within warrants a paragraph in the JB article.

While we're at it, let's get rid of Lady Gaga on Twitter too. It's even worse. Rizla (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete article, but merge the non-trivial bits (by which I mean the majority of the article) into Justin Bieber and/or Twitter. I could see how it would be a good example of the power of individual users on Twitter, but a whole article? WP:WHIM seems to apply here, a lot of the article is random facts about individual tweets. From what I've seen of the sources, a large number of them refer to Justin Bieber as the principal subject, and his twitter account only as a side-issue. See WP:WEB - web content does not necessarily have inherited notability. In addition, if we were to adopt the level of notability for social media that this has, we should note that there are enough sources tangentially covering various topics, with articles being needed for hundreds of public figures on many different kinds of platform. This seems to go against the spirit (if not also the exact letter in every case) of several policies, including WP:NOT for a start, WP:NOTDIARY, and, again, WP:IINFO.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources indicate that this is clearly a notable topic and meets GNG web content should not have inherent notability unless sources indicate it does and i see that in this case. I agree it is fancruft but its notable and i don't feel we should discriminate. Edinburgh   Wanderer  20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to the main articles on Justin Bieber or Celebrity use of Twitter. There are some sources about his use of social media, such as the one from Time, but most of the material in the article is ridiculously over detailed and often backed by less-than-credible sources or derived tangentially from sources primarily about things other than his Twitter account. Thus, those sources do not support an argument for general notability. This is clearly one important aspect of the subject's enormous notoriety, but is a relatively minor one in the context of his life and celebrity. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Steven, that was very well stated, and for the most part I agree. In my earlier comment I was wondering why there weren't more votes of this nature in this thread (sorry if I wasn't clear), as all the deletion comments make a much stronger case for merge and redirect than they do for deletion.   Th e S te ve   04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some relevant content was already copied-and-pasted into Bieber article. What else is mergable in this article? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, as this is pretty far from my preferred areas of editing. But having that whole article available in the history makes it so much easier to find the (ridiculous number of) sources should you need them, and the redirect should prevent incessant re-creation, that I can't imagine why the merge option wasn't more popular.   Th e S te ve   05:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing else relevant to merge into Bieber article. There is enough information already in that main article. --George Ho (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The other option is creating individual celebrity paragraphs in the quite small Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. A section for Kutcher, Gaga, and Bieber seems merited there. <font style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is a properly written article, with strong sourcing, etc. Given that 133 news outlets are reporting on "Justin Bieber gains 6 million Twitter followers in 4 months‎", it's clearly notable. --  Zanimum (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, even growing statistics could not suffice value of an article alone. Even TV episode reruns and video game stats do not suffice value of a topic. --George Ho (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment So, I decided to stop by and actually read this article. what I've read so far has plenty of fat to trim; but since you've become so convinced it's been exhausted of value...You mentioned philanthropy earlier, right? Darryl from Mars (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already copied-and-pasted philantrophy stuff to main Bieber article before the subarticle was reverted back to condensed version. Look, I'll copy-and-paste philantrophy stuff back into subarticle if you want, but it won't make any difference. --George Ho (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be careful in how things are worded - as asking people to donate money is not philanthropy. Philanthropy is when someone gives there money away.Moxy (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True, I did want to start from a subject he had specifically mentioned though. You got the water thing, I think I saw, what about the sudden flux of organ donors? Darryl from Mars (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on Hélène Campbell, who spurred him to tweet about organ donation, is relevant. --  Zanimum (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete After the rewrite, the only part that I thought was really notable, the competition between Gaga and Beiber for the number one slot, was gutted in totality. Therefore I don't see this as worth keeping anymore. This overrides my previous keep vote.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is nothing so notable about the account that it cannot be rolled into the main article concerning Justin Bieber (where this would likely be tagged undue). My thoughts on this article have already been written by someone else at WP:FART, so I will only link to it.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: there is a "I know it when I see it" line when we're dealing with X on Twitter articles, and Bieber is above that line. I should point out that, for example, Twitter actually changed their trending topics algorithm because of Bieber; if anything, this shows notability beyond "X uses Twitter". That should be the baseline for these articles: whether their relationship with Twitter consistently rises above that line. Probably for that reason, I'd lean to keeping this article (and probably Gaga and Obama, and, if it's created, One Direction, but not Yoko Ono, Rihanna, or Britney Spears). Sceptre (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Justin Beiber and/or Celebrities on Twitter per Steven Walling. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 8 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.