Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users in India

Whether this was an inappropriate (and too generic!) title or non-encyclopedic nature of the list (apparently to anyone who is not on any side of social media), but I know such a reference will be useful. Even if it can cause so many pages in different country, it does not make this reference less useful. I frequently come across discussions on some neutral reference list of big names from different fields who're available on social media. The deletion on this platform is okay, its just that I need to find the appropriate place on some other web platform! And yes, there is huge difference between the "List of newspaper readers" and "presence and accessibility of public figures"! I would've appreciated to be advised on modifications to make this topic more focused and encyclopedic, but all the arguments provided so far seems funny to me when I see encyclopedic listing such as p*** stars of x country! Did anyone say that we might as well have "List of people who f****". Sorry for an inappropriate but appropriate example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Some indian sou (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Bye.


 * There is not a single Wikipedia article with a title beginning "Porn stars in...", and if there was it would certainly be deleted. Wikipedia isn't a general reference site, it's a site that reproduces what other publications consider important; you need to demonstrate not just that these people have Twitter accounts, but that other people have published material on why these specific peoples' use of Twitter is significant. Mogism (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically the above stand is correct! But we also have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pornographic_film_actors_of_Indian_descent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Sikhs. And yes, it really doesn't make any difference from a wiki reader's perspective if it is an article staring with some key word or a page automatically generated from content categorization. --Some_Indian (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if you can demonstrate sources that indicate such a category would be useful, create Category:Indian Twitter users. The categories you've specified above aren't comparable to this, since "pornographic actress" and "Sikh" are defining characteristics of the people in question, and there are few if any people who are defined in terms of their use of social networking sites. I'm not going to reply to any further posts on a talkpage that will shortly be deleted; if you want to discuss it further, I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation, where the people who are used to deciding on whether marginal-notability topics ought to be included are most likely to be found. Mogism (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We recently had a large-scale discussion dealing with articles concerning users of twitter. Please feel free to read the main discussion. Note that it's rather long, you may want to grab some popcorn. That the individuals are twitter users in India is not particularly defining, so this category would be difficult to defend. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Considering What Wikipedia is not, by extension I think it fair to say that Wikipedia is not a telephone (or Twitter) directory. It seems to me that the main purpose / usefulness of this article would be to serve such a function, and that is not the role of an encyclopedia. Creating what amounts to a directory of Twitter users (of whatever geographical division, or all users) is inappropriate. Furthermore, there was a time when Facebook was effectively the only social networking site. Now we have several. What would we do with such an article when Twitter is no longer the popular phenomenon that it presently is - rename the page to "People from India who used Twitter once upon a time"?  David_FLXD  (Talk) 09:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)