Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:20, 1 December 2023

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 July 9. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Justin Bieber on Twitter

Main pages: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard § "… on Twitter", and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Appropriateness of "X on Twitter" (or similar) articles

Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Latin mnemonics (AfD discussion), Handedness of Presidents of the United States (AfD discussion), and Pon farr (AfD discussion) have all been nominated for deletion. Argument from beauty (AfD discussion) 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'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'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'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. Interchangeable 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.PumpkinSky talk 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft; let Wikia have it, though.

  Note, this has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion. Br'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 Misplaced Pages:Notability (web) easily and passes Misplaced Pages: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'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. Sven Manguard 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. ⇒TAP 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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#Merger_proposal, 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. Interchangeable 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, "Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not is a real policy, not just one guy's peeves. It is actually a fact that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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!) Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Tbhotch. 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 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 Misplaced Pages grows more useful by having more articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete same as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. Does not belong to an encyclopedia.--GoP_TN 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 Misplaced Pages:Summary style article of that Justin_Bieber#Twitter 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.  The Steve  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/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#NEWS, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view#Point_of_view_forks, 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'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'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 Misplaced Pages 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¢ © 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'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 Misplaced Pages is not. It might be well written, well sourced and well meaning, but that doesn't exempt it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 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 00:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. This is an encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete it. Hard. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Evanh2008 05:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per William Thweatt - the article is not even remotely encyclopedic. - Nick Thorne 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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.  The Steve  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??  The Steve  08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)