Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users


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

The result was no consensus. People seem fairly divided between keep, delete, and some variant on rename/merge. There's certainly no consensus to delete; I would suggest participants reframe the conversation by having a dedicated conversation on whether merging would be an appropriate outcome. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Twitter users and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. More like a directory. And worst of all, not referenced with sources to show why there should be a list of Twitter users in an encyclopedia article. There are so many Twitter users out there that conceivably, such a list, even if it is limited to those who have Wikipedia articles, could reach thousands, possibly millions. If just a few famous people are notable for using Twitter, this could be written about in the main Twitter article. Dew Kane (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please retract the "possibly millions" statement. Non-notable members of a list can be removed with normal editing. See below. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note See WP:N, WP:SPLIT, WP:DEL, WP:EDIT, WP:LIKELYVIOLATION.
 * No list and no article will ever be in danger of too much content. That is what the edit button is for WP:EDIT, WP:DEL.
 * There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the voters here about the nature of Wikipedia titles. No title ever means, "everything about this subject"; they always mean, everything WP:N Notable about this subject. Hence, WP:LISTNAME says, "Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article." The default for all articles is that the subject or subjects is/are notable, so notable in the title is not necessary.
 * "X celebrity on Twitter" articles are NOT "established"; no article is "safe" from deletion in any case, but as Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter shows, consensus on this issue has yet to be established.
 * It is never a valid deletion argument to say that an article might be at some future time in violation of WP rules WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is this article any more absurd than Lady Gaga on Twitter, Justin Bieber on Twitter, Rihanna on Twitter, or Barack Obama on Twitter? Without formally !voting yet, I would maintain that this list, a navigational aid, is equally worthy of inclusion (or deletion) as the rest of these articles.  It would seem more proper to nominate them all as a class, rather than single out a navigational aid.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that other crap exists and all that, but we've had List of LiveJournal users for quite some time. I'm not terribly attached to this article, although one could make a reasonable argument that it meets our list criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, it was made obsolete by the deletion of all the linked articles.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * !voting Keep per Blofeld et al. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically, such lists are their own rationale. At least a couple of the entries have articles specifically on the Twitter accounts (as ridiculous as it is to have articles on peoples' Twitter accounts): it's not a list of Twitter users, it's a list of articles about the Twitter use by people (perhaps the original title captured that better). Note also the existence of Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts--if the one goes, so should the other. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I'd rather the tables were expanded to contain note summaries rather than having individual articles on them all.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Utterly brilliant. Then I would support keeping this, if we discard the rest.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep On condition that the existing articles are merged. I'd rename it List of most popular Twitter users.. Do I endorse this sort of content, absolutely not. But it would be the lesser of two evils and I suspect this is exactly what my evil fellow doctor is thinking.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed opinion I say Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "List of most popular" means some top 20-50? And we measure popularity by number of followers? Is that the plan? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * List of Twitter users with over 5 million followers..?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see how this can be relevant for an encyclopedia.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not, but its the lesser of two evils. Deleting it doesn't solve the problem we have with the others..♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting should solve the problem. Why do we have to choose of the two? Kill all evils. Facebook has started verifying user now. Will we make "List of Facebook users" then based on how many subscribers they have? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Corralling problems are often more effective, as it provides a singular outlet for this fluff rather than a variety of articles that are individually even less notable. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The list stays only if the current column of notes stays is what you say. Or else it would just be a collection of links and we dont keep mere collections of internal links. The content in the notes column can be (and should be and probably is) included in popularity section of individual biographies. That makes more sense. Here its just a spicy gossip column where one can see which celebrity is "awesome". And frankly, most of the content would be deleted for being mere trivial. "The black and white image features Rihanna crouching against a wall and wearing punk clothes." Plus we shouldn't be surprised if this attracts SPAs to glorify their demigods. Also, if the article actually is about how Twitter is used by celebrities, it should go under a section "In celebrity circle" in Twitter usage. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The addition of that content is what changed my mind, which is why I called it utterly brilliant. Before that, it had no sources.  A name change might be in order, but it won't be the first.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! So adding the notes column has added value to the table. Thats correct. But what does the over all table have value in it? The enteries in it, i.e. the Twitter accounts are themselves not notable. They are talked about because their owners are notable. This information should hence belong to the respective biographies. If at all these tweets are a subject of study and commented upon by some parties, they would go in the article Twitter usage, as Twitter would then be the main subject. Do we keep "List of celebrities' pet animals" or "List of celebrities' bank accounts"? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per my above comment and on Dr. Blofeld's conditions.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WTF??? Keep with the condition that other articles not under discussion be merged here???? I repeat WTF??? List of top 10 or top 25 Twitter users would be manageable. Top 100 would even be O.K. How can you make conditional keeps about articles not under consideration. I don't know who will keep it up to date if there is a lot of numerical content. We need to discuss the format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're making a bunch of odd conditions yourself. There is no need to limit to a certain number for reasons of manageability. The list is only limited by how many articles you and yours manage to produce on this "topic". BTW, I hope your first WTF was not directed at the nominator--or maybe that's your way of saying "Speedy keep" (but there is nothing out of line about this nomination). Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * HOLY WTF?? Now we are trying to by acclamation conditionally keep things if we merge articles that are nominated at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, you are aware that the closing admin is free to ignore any conditions or comments, right? AFD isn't a binding contract, and conditions simply mean that an editor reserves the right to nominate the article themselves if the conditions aren't met, and vote in a different manner.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That an article is nominated for GA means, as you well know, nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, @TonyTheTiger: Justin Bieber on Twitter is not nominated for deletion. Whether or not this article is deleted, it has zero impact on the Bieber article.  It's status at GA or not is irrelevant to this AFD. Notability is not inherited. --LauraHale (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. I am disappointed by the number of folks using this discussion as an excuse for all sorts of "pointy" behavior. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Pointy behavior might have predated this discussion, but this discussion is actually constructive, in my opinion, and a valid alternative that honors WP:PRESERVE and addresses the shortcomings of a number of articles, while staying within the letter of policy.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  20:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It would be the equivalent of having a list of facebook users. It's simply too big.  An argument COULD be made for a list of people famous only because of twitter, but even that should be a category, not a list. Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete An encyclopedia doesn't comment on social network activity. Lucasoutloud (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Says who? --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucasoutloud, if you believe that, then you have half a dozen article to put up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps rename/repurpose The topic as it currently stands, "List of Twitter users", is far too broad for an encyclopedic entry. "List of most followed Twitter users", or some similar alternative, is a good topic in theory, but the effort needed to constantly update and patrol it for accuracy would probably be beyond our capacity. I'd be willing to rename/repurpose this list to the latter title if I had evidence that the criteria for inclusion wouldn't be volatile.  Them  From  Space  22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep although renaming after determining a clearly defined a scope is certainly a good idea (I had expanded it to the top 10, including AK at 18, as his account had an article). I think that maintaining the ranking on up to 20 users would be manageable.  I had intended to include number of followers, but thought that would be a nightmare to maintain, and simple rankings would be easier, as that information is readily available and probably doesn't change that frequently. The list gives context to the existing @XXXXXX accounts that have articles, to show where they rank compared to each other.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposing to have a list of Top 20 Twitter accounts also means proposal of having Top 20 Facebook accounts, Top 20 Blogspot accounts, Top 20 Yahoo! Communities, etc. Then we will also have List of top 20 Most liked Youtube videos, List of top 20 most disliked youtube videos, List of top 20 most commented Youtube videos, List of most shared links on facebook, wow! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I didn't suggest that we should turn this into a top 20 list, I said that a top 20 list would be manageable (i.e. not difficult to maintain).  I also said that having a list in some for makes navigation and comparison of the articles about Twitter accounts easier (regardless of if you or I they should be here or not, it looks like they are here to stay in some form).  I also said that there should be a clearly defined scope for the article, of which the top 20 is an option.  Probably not the best option, but still an option. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't make lists for ease of navigation unless they are basic topics where the structure of the subject is made clear... something which gives outline of the whole subject; e.g. Outline of literature. This is not the case here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is scope here. No, it may not be the clearest atm (do we put notable accounts? top accounts? only accounts with articles? etc.) but we have the general concept and at this point that alone is not a valid reason to delete the article because of other policies. WP:NOTDIR says that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject", and so therefore lists function as our own directory system. WP:NOTDUP says that lists and categories are generally complementary, and since we have Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts I don't see how List of Twitter users is wrong.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A change of scope may be necessary, but its doable. As visible in several of the twitter feeds with articles, there can be quite a bit of commentary on individual feeds. Personally, I'd rather have something like List of Twitter accounts — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Topic is notable. Article needs improvement and possible name change but in this case, it deserves an article of its own, especially given the media coverage that explicitly compares different people and different accounts. Oppose out of process conditional merge proposals.  If people want to merge other articles in, then this article will need to survive an AfD and then merge proposals can be put on those talk pages for those articles.  Realistically though, I doubt that can happen because Justin Bieber on Twitter has so much information that WP:UNDUE would happen if the text was moved over. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Laura, you may be confused. It was never proposed that this list be merged. As for Bieber, that's incorrect: it has been proven to you by a few editors that that article could easily be condensed--but no one is discussing a merge here. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - As use of Twitter reaches near-universality, I look forward to new historical articles such as List of people who text, List of e-mail users, List of cell phone users, List of telephone users and List of automobile drivers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think the existence of So-and-so on Twitter articles represents recentism and that those articles tend to be filled with trivia of no lasting significance. In other words, they don't belong in an encyclopedia. While some tweaking of the name and scope of this list might be needed, a merger of selected information from those Twitter account articles could be useful. I do not advocate copying the sum total of those articles here, an act which would indeed be ridiculous. Lady  of  Shalott  02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Twitter has a Twitter account--does that not belong? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously unfinished article; I think this could possibly work well. With all the Blah on Twitter accounts showing up; a merge to this page would be the best way to show information that is notable, but not notable enough for a separate article. Rename to List of most popular Twitter users, or maybe List of notable Twitter users; probably the latter is better. I don't see how this is much different than List of YouTube personalities. I don't think it should be just a rank of the most followed though. Just notable accounts. — Statυs  (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, however notable Twitter users would be huge if one just followed the naming convention as inclusion criteria (how many Twitter users are notable? Lots. How many accounts are notable, not so many).  I think Crisco's idea (List of Twitter accounts) is more suitable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed vote to redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians; it is a much better article. Although I think that a new article shouldn't have been created, just this one updated. — Statυs  (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and keep it strictly to twitter feeds/accounts which are notable enough to have articles written about them (ie there is coverage of the person/orgs' twitter feed). I would consider including periodic lists of the top 10 or 20 twitter accounts, maybe yearly, assuming that anyone is covering the stats released by twitter. I dont like the article length details attached to each name. all that material needs to be in the articles themself, with a brief mention here of, i dont know, why the feed is notable? some may be funny (steve martin and conan obrien, for instance, hope they have coverage and can get articles on their twitter accounts), some are, uh, well, celebrity and fame are, as Clive James has said, now based on a persons fame and celebrity, a recursive circle jerk o rama.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Please keep your delete/keep vote comments to 140 characters or less.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice one! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Twitter is a culturally important site/medium receiving a vast amount of press interest, and a chart of leading twitter users is somewhat similar to having a chart of List of highest-grossing films, List of best-selling singles worldwide, List of best-selling books, Forbes Celebrity 100, etc. (Is a popular twitter feed any different from a popular book or film?)  The list conforms to WP:L by presenting article links in a list format with additional information in a way that adds value (by permitting sorting).  (Note: I'm not opposed to renaming or tightening criteria a bit.)  --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Twitter apparently has over 140,000,000 users. Are we going to list them all? Dricherby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have Lists of people yet it doesn't have 7 billion entries. "Notable" is always a requirement to be in any list. Seems a bit silly to even imply it would ever grow to 140m editors against all policies.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists of people is a list of lists, not a list of people. There is no List of people (it is a redirect to the aforementioned list of lists). Dricherby (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying you really believe this article will (or could) grow to have 140,000,000 entries then?  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! Why not? All one has to do is tweet and pass it on. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thurber-style. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the article won't grow to 140,000,000 entries. But what are the inclusion criteria?  Obviously, the person must be notable but all kinds of notable people use Twitter.  As Beyond My Ken says above, we don't have List of cellphone users even though all kinds of notable people use cellphones.  A next attempt might be to exclude people who are notable but not famous (academics, for example) and who just happen to use Twitter in the same way as ordinary people do, without being followed by large numbers of people with whom they're not personally acquainted (now define "famous", "ordinary", "large numbers" and so on).  What about corporate accounts?  What about pop stars who use Twitter for announcements and so on (which is essentially the same thing).  Or is it just to be a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable (I guess Stephen Fry would count there, for example)?  I realise that susceptibility to poor editing is not a reason for deletion but this is just going to descend into a quagmire of random famous people being added to the list on grounds that they have a Twitter account and, if we're lucky, a couple of citations to reliable sources that mention in passing that the person uses Twitter.  I mentioned List of cellphone users; an even better and more direct comparison would be the absence of List of bloggers. Because blogs tend to be more substantive than Twitter feeds, many bloggers have become notable by frequent and reasonably in-depth media coverage (Andrew Breitbart would be the classic example); I suspect that few people are notable specifically for their use of Twitter. Dricherby (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why no "List of cellphone users"? Because only who you call and the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, etc know what you say on your cellphone, that's why. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No we don't have list of bloggers, but we have List of blogs. As this article is only a few days old (14 hours at the time of nomination) perhaps we should define a scope of it before deleting it for lack of scope. The only reason I expanded it to include the top ten was because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I do admit I have made at least one mistake in the past (I am married after all), so we can call this number two. Trim it to accounts that have pages, by all means, per WP:WTAF, but don't delete it because there are some red links in it. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe your last suggestion ("a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable") is closest to the truth. Yes, it's a navigational aid, similar to a category as laid out by WP:CLN, but the core is the few people whose Twitter activity has spawned article and RS's. An arbitrary number (top twenty followed) might be an easy guideline, but those five or six X on Twitter articles is what makes this different from List of cellphone users (if Tom Cruise's cellphone is ever a bluelink, I'll create that list myself).  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main point being: While the article may have defects, none are fatal.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, reluctantly. It passes GNG and many other guidelines, while failing few, if any, decisively. It's like a 2012 version of "most read columnists" of yesteryear. Sickening, idiotic, but notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Forgot to say keep provided the article name and lead quite strictly define the scope. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - see also related AfD: Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter. Lady  of  Shalott  15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Having established the precedent of "X on Twitter" articles, there's no need for this one. If a celebrity's Twitter presence isn't notable enough to stand on its own as an article, we need not mention it beyond the person's own page. At a minimum, rename to List of notable Twitter users, as a truly comprehensive list of Twitter users is neither feasible nor desirable. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of notable Twitter users like BDD said. The current title is on a level misleading. I think that that is the most disturbing thing about it. There are twitter pages that have received reliable coverage in the media. | help dןǝɥ  | 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the Manual of Style, at WP:LISTNAME, says to never use the word "notable" in the title. It is assumed they are notable if they are to be included in the list.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed my opinion. I think a merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians would be successful. | help dןǝɥ  | 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence that being on Twitter is an indication of notability for the celebrity, a mention on it's popularity with celebs should be mentioned on the Twitter page. Secret account 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and restrict it to those which are actually notable and have articles (currently: Gaga, Bieber, Obama, Kutcher and Rihanna, though the last of those is up for deletion). Also, remove the 'Notes' section of the table, as it's basically redundant to the articles themselves. A simple list of articles is fine. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the claims that 'but we'll have to include everyone with a Twitter account!' - no we don't, and we shouldn't. Just as List of YouTube personalities doesn't include every single YouTube account, only those notable enough to have their own articles. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A list of personalities isn't the same as a list of people. Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just seen Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, and my suggestion now is Redirect to that much better-developed article. Striking my comment above. Robofish (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment People are trying so desperately to get rid of Foo on Twitter pages that they are behaving non-sensically. The Notes column in this list article is being used in a way that works against the usefullnes of the page. The notes should be like Gaga: #1 in terms of twitter followers since August 2010, Bieber: #2 in twitter followers and rival to Gaga, Britney: #1 in Twitter followers from May 2010 to August 2010, first to 5 million followers, etc. Something short and sweet that is useful. Trying to cram full articles into the notes is not useful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My intention, after the completion of this AfD, is to trim the notes section so it doesn't look like an article was cut and pasted into a box. While I appreciate Dr. Blofeld's efforts, I do think I can improve on them.  Maybe I will get a head start on it today.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per my Notes, TonyTheTiger and Colapeninsula et al, on the condition that the article does not get to be a problem in the future AND all reasonable means (such as RFC WP:Requests for Comment) are used to confront any such problems. I have no objections to renaming per se, but see no compelling suggestions here; eg, the difference between "user" and "account" is of no account. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Views expressed above. Gawd! We might as well have List of people eating most number of Hamburgers. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * List of competitive eaters :/ Lady  of  Shalott  12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to look for more examples, then found List of lists of lists and my head exploded.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:REQUEST List of Wikipedians whose heads exploded after reading list of lists of lists !! Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WHATEVER! Treat my vote as I-dont-like-it case if you want to. I am not giving my views on it. Call them conservative if you need to. But these all are just rubbish. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as to Twitter articles being rubbish and do not mean to diminish your vote in any way, but this one seems the lesser of the available evils and better than individual articles. If we can't eliminate problems, we coral them.  And there are some proper sources, even if I wish they didn't exist.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * The basic problem here, that has generated the overwhelming majority of the back-and-forth above, is the totally daft idea of having this as a list article at all, for which list inclusion criteria have to be then invented. There's a proper prose article here, waiting to get out.  It was obscured by the daft choice of using a table.  You can see it at Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, which I have included under the umbrella of this AFD discussion.  It's also an ideal merger target for articles like . Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As the individual who had the daft idea to turn a bulleted list into table, I quite like your article (in particular the lead, which was something I had intended to add to this one), however I would advise against the addition of Rihanna (as noted in that Afd). --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect (maybe small merge) to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. At this point, the article seems unlikely to grow beyond the few people (celebrities and politicians) who have articles about their use of Twitter...so it seems logical to have the info about their use of Twitter in an article about the use of Twitter by celebs and politicians. We certainly don't need both articles; they are pretty redundant to each other.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just clarified, from merge to redirect (maybe small merge).  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As it stands, the name implies that it's a list of every Twitter user ever and that's just silly. But if we rename it then the name becomes similar to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and the two will basically have the same function. So, merge. CarniCat (meow) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Nolelover/CarniCat. (Vote changed from a delete, struck through above.) --BDD (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Change my view. Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Now what the hell is this? We discuss deletion of this list. After this has started, many other "twitter of XYZ" go for AfD. Then someone starts a completely new article which is nothing but same stuff without table and same stuff from individual articles. Why do you wanna keep writing same and same on so many articles? This all my-twitter-account-is-awesome is also present on individual biographies. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable question. If you look at the first edit of Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, it is obvious it was a copy/paste of this article.  It even included the AFD tag, which is worrisome.  It would have been better if Uncle G has just worked on this article instead of copy/pasting it to create his own version of the same thing.  If anything, that article is a clone of this article, and should be merged into THIS one.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  11:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Poor admin who tries to close this AfD. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Pah! It's not that hard.  We have two articles under the umbrella of this discussion, each an alternative of the other.  The choice is between deleting both and redirecting either one to the other.  The number of people who  after I presented Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians is a good indicator of which way the wind is blowing. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bit dimwitted on two counts. First: If you look at the first edit, it's fairly obvious that it's copied and pasted from the places that the edit summary says it was copied and pasted from.  Ironically, those are the very places that list of Twitter users was copied from, except that proper hyperlinkage, to conform with our copyright licence, wasn't given in the edit summary by the editor who did it there.  Second:  It's only "worrisome" if one is lazy.  Everyone else will have read the explanation only a few bullet points above that it's included under the umbrella of this discussion, to stand and fall with it.  After all, as I pointed out, it's the prose article that was in there waiting to get out.  It's not even hard to work out why the separation, with a little applied thought.  First: The initial edit summary is correct, whereas it isn't in list of Twitter users.  Second: Kelapstick declared that xe was going to make further changes, and  that those changes involved .  I went instead with keeping the prose, to provide a centralized merger target, and losing the table.  I even corrected several errors in the citations along the way.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stay WP:CIVIL. There is no reason to be calling people "dimwitted" or "lazy". Second, either I've misunderstood what you wrote or your criticism of another editor's failure "to conform with our copyright license" when copy-pasting material from one Wikipedia page to another is misplaced. All material uploaded to Wikipedia is available under the same license. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a third choice: You haven't misunderstood the criticism, it's not mis-placed, and what was done was indeed not correct. There's a hyperlink to the page that explains what's necessary per the copyright licence, above, already given.  Follow that hyperlink and read it.  Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, it really doesn't require that I'm lazy or dimwitted to come to my conclusion. Adding an article this late in the game for what seems is to intentionally put it at AFD isn't really such a good idea since most of the votes were already in. I would have just boldly changed the first article and moved or proposed a move instead of creating a second article.  The format is better on your article, I agree with that, but the process of how we got here is a bit unnecessarily sloppy.  I guess I don't see the point of doing it this way, unless it is to make some point.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It does require a bit of laziness to not read a very clear explanation of what's going on only a few bullet points above where you wonder what's going on. And it is dimwitted to see an edit summary outright saying where things are copied from and then proceed to claim that they were copied from somewhere else.  (Well, it's either dimwittedness or malice, an outright insult that the edit summary was dishonest.  I didn't attribute it to malice.) I've already explained two very good reasons why it was done this way.  If you've never encountered situations where we have multiple alternate drafts of an article going in divergent directions, with a choice to have one, the other, or indeed neither of them, then you've not experienced everything at Wikipedia.  It's not an unusual practice.  I've done it several times at AFD, and it happens fairly regularly in article talk page discussion.  The important thing to remember at AFD is not to attempt to pre&euml;mpt or to bypass the deletion discussion, which is why I've always included the alternative under the umbrella of the AFD discussion of the original, just as . Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an unusual practice butt adding the other article to the AfD after the vast majority of !votes have been cast certainly is. There's an entire section of commenters who have not seen the new article at all; do their !votes just get disregarded? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but are you trying to get this to no-consensus? This thing is so convoluted...  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a election. Votes are not "cast".  This is a discussion, and good practice here is, as elsewhere in Wikipedia, to watchlist a discussion that one has participated in or simply revisit it regularly.  It is, after all, a seven day long discussion.  (I added the alternative a mere 48 hours into it.  It wasn't even a last-minute addition from patrolling the tail end of AFD.)  AFD is not, and is never meant to be, a process where a handful of drive-by voters comment within the first few hours, and then nothing happens for six and a half days; and if one doesn't participate in a discussion, rather than touch it once and nevermore, one risks missing out. You are welcome, if you think that it is needed, to go to the user talk pages of any of the editors who haven't yet altered their opinions and ask them simply to revisit the discussion, if you want to.  That's normal AFD practice, too.  But closing administrators know to take into account changes that happen during the discussion and to read earlier comments, by any people who don't watchlist and who don't pay attention to subsequent discussion, in light of that.  It's not as though that's unusual, either, sad to say.  Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Following this: I do not like what you did and have ZERO idea what to do regarding my own "vote" because this is very convoluted. I might favour a redirect from one to the other but having done that at the 11th hour, I wouldn't even begin to know how to express an opinion to say that.  The addition of a second article so late just feels like a complete out of process move. Oppose: Out of process addition of second article into AfD.  Is that what you correctly want me to do?  Does that now count as a second "vote"?--LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You unnecessarily read too much between the lines Uncle G. Rudely questioning my intelligence doesn't make your assumptions correct nor does it diminish the validity of my concerns.  The whole way this was done is indeed "worrisome", and as others have pointed out, confusing the issue.  And I don't recall questioning your faith, only your choices.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, only you thought it was worrisome. Others saw the very clear explanation, considered, and changed their minds on the issue at hand, without any expressions of worry, and without even being confused by Dr. Blofeld messing around removing an AFD notice.  &#9786;  There is, and was, nothing worrisome here, and the idea that you're confused by something as simple as a suggested alternative being put forward in a discussion is ludicrous.  No-one questioned your intelligence, but I told you that you're being a bit dimwitted because you are being a bit dimwitted.  This is straightforward and easy to figure out, without being silly and coming over all worried by something very simple whose explanation was right in front of you.  Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find this rather amusing. As I look up at the concerns of others being expressed, I'm reminded of the expression "When you point a finger at someone, three more are pointing back at you", for some odd reason.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the issue is scope. "List of Twitter users" is a heckuva lot different than "Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians", and boundaries are better expressed with the defining "Use of...by..." Yes, I saw the first edit (heck, a redirect alone would work without a merge), but I think this topic is better expressed in prose form over a table with a name that practically invites every two-bit comedian to add themselves. Now, Animesh, I agree with you that these articles are not the best (to put it diplomatically) and are getting spread all over the place, but if we can create a clear central location for all the relevant information, maybe the content won't need its own articles and/or sections in the respective bios. Does that make sense?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Not an encyclopedic topic, nor that noteworthy of a trait, with it reaching such high levels of use. Not opposed to more specific article maybe, but as is, seems more appropriate for a category or something... Sergecross73   msg me   13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading over this, clearly it's not worth having an article. Not against a merge, though. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not worthy of having it's own article, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga alone should not even have their own articles.  Jay Jay Talk to me 23:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - calls for deletion seem to stem from intellectual snobbery. —Pengo 05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.