Deletion of List of Twitter users

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: See , , #CONTENT, , 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SPLIT||WP:DEL||WP:EDIT||WP:LIKELYVIOLATION)

Comment: 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  would happen if the text was moved over
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: 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 equests 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: per . I am disappointed by the number of folks using this discussion as an excuse for all sorts of |"pointy" behavior
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (:WP:NOTDIR||:WP:POINT)

Comment: Per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADIRECTORY)