Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna 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. Consensus is that the mention of her Twitter account in the cited sources is incidental (i.e., "trivial" within the meaning of the GNG), and not actually about her Twitter account in and of itself in the manner of the Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber Twitter articles. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna on Twitter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article cites sources that address topics that Rihanna tweeted about, but the sources do not directly address her Twitter account, so while they would be useful on articles about the actual singles she was asking fans to vote on, they are not suitable to establish notability for her account itself. In short, her Twitter account has not been subject to significant coverage, her comments and music have. kelapstick(bainuu) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All this would be treated better in the main article on Rihanna, as kelapstick says. I'm not sure there's any useful mergable info here, but if someone wants to try a merge, they could. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - her actions on Twitter don't appear to be independently notable and notability is not inherited. SplashScreen (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, this isn't an article appropriate for Wikipedia, just a collection of pretty trivial news bits. Anything especially notable could be covered in her main article. Having a large number of followers on twitter doesn't make this interaction a notable topic. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  14:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as patently unencyclopedic fluff. Perhaps we should have article on Rihanna on MySpace and Facebook, or whatever the flavor of the year social media site is popular next year.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. I had a feeling Bieber and Gaga would spawn similar ones.. We now have Ashton Kutcher on Twitter too. Kudos to the nominator for picking up on this tripe.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonder no more, Drmies created List of Twitter users.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * favor merge - I like the idea of merging. There might in the future be a notable Twitter-related event relating to Rihanna or another celebrity but nearly all of those should go on the articles, not on a separate spin-off article. It would be like having a separate article entitled, Barack Obama's books that was distinct from the articles about his specific books. It would either be a retread of stuff covered in those articles or just an accretion of any comment made by anyone about his books, regardless of notability. DrPhen (talk)
 * There was a merge discussion; see the article history. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally, I think Foo on Twitter articles provide a place for reliably sourced content. I think there should be one discussion rather than separate ones for each page, but in general. For the top few users this is a notable topic. Not every celebrity needs one, but there is room for a select few.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahem. "For the few top users"--and how do you propose to define new? If there should be one AfD, one Keep or Delete for all of them, you can't claim special status for some. It makes no sense to do so: you can't have it both ways, with one single AfD and yet some kind of automatic notability for a couple. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In truth the rule should be based on WP:GNG, which seems to be being ignored in this AFD. The content here is well sourced and seems to be a type of topic welcome for other celebs. I think this should get DRVed and reversed as no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT is being given above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tony, If you are suggesting that I nominated this because I just don't like the idea of Twitter accounts having Wikipedia articles, you are wrong. You will notice I didn't nominate any others, because they had significant coverage of the account itself, which regardless of my position of Twitterpedia on the whole, would prevent me from nominating them for deletion because I think they meet the GNG, and I don't nominate articles that meet the GNG.  This article is made up of sources saying "Rihanna tweeted this about her new album", and "Rihanna tweeted that to her fans", that isn't coverage of the account, it's coverage of Rihanna.  The Ashton Kutcher twitter article talks about how it was the first to reach 1,000,000 followers, that is coverage of the account, the sources here are not (same with the Biebs and Meat Dress Lady, as Laura states below). --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge: As the article stands now, I would favour a merge into the articles about the album. The content of the article as it stands now is different than Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter because it does not have the breadth of sources to demonstrate independent notability and there is not enough content that would make such a merge difficult. The focus is almost exclusively source wise on use of Twitter around albums.  I would support recreation of the article without bias if it was substantially added to where independent notability was clear and the content was great enough to make it hard to merge. --LauraHale (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to parse your final sentence but find it very difficult. And what "bias" are you talking about? And why would size matter here? Why should the stand-alone notability of one topic depend on the size of a related article, into which it could or could not be merged? (Dependent, of course, on whether some editors allow for such a discussion, which is not a given.) Drmies (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying if the subject clearly becomes independently notable, as is the case for Biebs and Gaga, then I would support the recreation of the article. I should have perhaps worded as "recreated without prejudice" but brain is half asleep. As the article stands now, I don't see independent notability and spending more time than is healthy reading about social media, I have heard very little about Rihanna but have heard a great deal about other accounts like Bieber, Gaga, Demi Moore and Ashton.  (Oddly, haven't seen as much about Obama.) --LauraHale (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge and hopefully create a precedent for "X celebrity on Y social networking site" type article. Any encyclopedic material on here that is not on Rihanna's article should be merged there. If it all overlaps, then delete.  Them From  Space  22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her tweets aren't significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete My general view is that all these So-and-so on Twitter articles are piles of trivial recentism of no lasting significance. In this case, the subject (that is the Twitter account) doesn't even meet the GNG. Lady  of  Shalott  02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, your "scholarliness" is so old fashioned they don't even have e-books about it. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – Information in this article (which is barely anything) is already present on the respective album articles. — Statυs  (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There are lots of trivial media space-filling mentions of social networking sites, but no secondary analysis of the significance of the subject of this article, so it fails WP:N. The material is inherently unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia should not be used to promote websites. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - see also related AfD: Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users. Lady  of  Shalott  15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article on someone's writings (yeah! tweets are sort of writings) that are not notable on their own need not occupy space in an encyclopedia. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike the other X on Twitter articles that do have direct notability from events caused because of them, this one doesn't really. The choosing of the single thing isn't directly related to the Twitter account in the sources, so it doesn't bring much to the article. Silver  seren C 22:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that this article could be easily named Rihanna's song-naming or something else like that, since really that's all. DrPhen (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For a merger target, I suggest Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, where this would fit quite comfortably in the celebrity case studies section, which already mentions Rihanna in its introduction. Uncle G (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would advise against a merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians (notwithstanding it would be a suitable merge target for list of twitter users). The entire Rihanna on Twitter article is made up of examples of tweets about upcoming singles and albums, which is the sort of thing that most major music personalities who use Twitter do, and the sort of thing that gets picked up by organizations that cover this sort of thing report back to the public.  Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians should cover their use (as it is on Gaga and the Biebs), and not just be a reprint of what they said on Twitter (as it on Rihanna).--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - Take Lady Gaga on Twitter and Justin Bieber on Twitter. Both have lots of information and relevance to real-life. This is just a paragraph or two that's not really notable and such. CarniCat (meow) 20:42, 1 June 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.