Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia doesn't care how many friends you have

Stuff you made up
is only relevant if you're Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupuscule (talk • contribs) 2012-10-15 (UTC) ‎

Wikipedia is the best e-encyclopedia
One must read these articles to improve their vocabulary and develop some knowledge which is out of the social world. I put forward my prospective to support Wikipedia as much as possible Swapnil Kr. Chaudhuri (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

What is a relevant number of social media followers in BLPs?
This essay is fine and I agree with what it says, but at the moment I look for the opposite info: How many Twitter followers are impressive enough to be mentioned in an existing BLP? For comparison, the Emma Blackery BLP mentions more than 1.4M YouTube followers right in the silly, while the Sasha Grey BLP does not mention more than 1.2M Twitter followers in an or elsewhere on the page. One of those Twitter aggregators blurred most info on their site, but an ordinary view-source:URL (Ctrl-U) sufficed to get an estimated value of about USD 15,000 per post;  allegedly. Are those followers relevant for, say, Influencer marketing, or too horrible to talk about it? N.B.: What's missing here is only a WP:NUMFRIENDS section to possible answers or guidelines, not the answer itself. –84.46.53.62 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't do original research. We don't decide as Wikipedia editors what number of followers is impressive. We don't use the numbers reported by the social media sites. If a secondary source takes note of the numbers and reports on them (in a credible way), that's the situation where the numbers might be considered noteworthy enough to be used in an article.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, also discussed in the WP:TEAHOUSE, normal WP:42 rules outside of, and the one notable YouTuber I'm interested in got an infobox as musician on her my say so. –84.46.53.3 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)