Deletion of Barack Obama on Twitter

Comment: Must I say something? Surely, this topic is notable, right? However, writing an article about this topic.... is not very easy, but I guess it has some merit about the next campaign. Still, this article is just retelling of all events, and no significant viewpoints have been yet made about Obama-Twitter. I crossed out "delete" in favor of '''Neutral''' because of , unfortunately, which speaks about loading issues.  comes in play, as well, because even a special issue of the ''Time'' magazine can do better than this article, no offense
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZE||WP:MOS)

Comment: per  and .  Not everything that is reported in reliable sources is appropriate for its own article, especially things that are trivial and commonplace like this.  Some of the more notable material on this subject should be presented in articles like Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but not in a standalone article on the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTDIARY)

Comment: Under NPOV, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts: "Summary style" articles|article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. See . Also see : "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic." The biographical article Barack Obama on Twitter is not a written account of Barack Obama's life. Moreover the keeps have failed to establish that Barack Obama on Twitter is a significant part of a written account of Barack Obama's life. In fact, Twitter is such an insignificant event in the life of Barack Obama that a search of the Barack Obama article for "twitter" reveals that twitter is not even mentioned in the Barack Obama biography. That raises  issues, which notes that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. The keeps have not established consensus to condense Barack Obama on Twitter to a brief summary in the Barack Obama main article as required before creating an article spinout. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is part of treating biographical facts on Barack Obama in one biographical article. Rather, the creation of Barack Obama on Twitter bypassed the NPOV required article spinout consensus process. The keeps have not established that Barack Obama on Twitter is a natural part of growth for the Barack Obama main article as required by . Barack Obama on Twitter should be deleted per NPOV and NOT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOVFACT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: per Colapeninsula and The Steve. To me, passess  and agree it's too long to merge
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per nominator ("...it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article.") and suggest that he start a erge discussion per our policies.  Also suggest he/she take the time to read ynthesis, as using a source mainly about one thing in an article on something else is both not synthesis and not against GNG sourcing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M||WP:S)

Comment: because this is what Wikipedia is . Wikipedia is DIARY, CASE study, and DIRECTORY. This is not a simple issue of notability. The fact is, for any major public figure, you're going to be able to assemble sources about a myriad of subtopics. Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable. The problem is, you're starting to get into topic selections that resemble the biases of the editor. You're starting to confuse "the subject" with "what the subject is notable for". It's your standard  problem where people can write multiple articles that are all basically about the same thing, which would make the encyclopedia even more unmanageable than it already is. (Note: this is a copy-and-paste comment that I also posted at the similar Bieber article. Everything I said there applies equally here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:NOTCASE||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: This article is a proper separate article, per , as including it in the main Barack Obama article would be |undue weight. Furthermore, this is one of the few on Twitter accounts that I support existing, because Obama has specifically used Twitter extensively throughout his presidency and in specific venues, such as the Twitter Town Hall. There has been extensive coverage on his Twitter use and how it relates to his presidency and his current presidential campaign, shown in sources http://books.google.com/books?id=EQ14o3LiVloC&pg=PA389&dq=Barack+Obama+presidency+and+twitter&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iwv2T96-G8i26wGBoNXdBg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Barack%20Obama%20presidency%20and%20twitter&f=false like this. If Barack Obama received an extensive amount of coverage on his usage of other venues, then those might be notable enough to make, but right now, that is just an OTHERSTUFF argument, because there is no indication that Obama significantly uses any other venue besides Twitter. Furthermore,, the comments about email and his home are red herrings. This article is not indiscriminate or violate NOT, because of the extensive specific coverage of Obama's Twitter account
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT||WP:DUE)