Deletion of Barack Obama on Twitter (2nd nomination)

Comment: Without citing any Wikipedia policies, this article seems to be useless, a fan effort, and better suited as a trimmed down version on his main page or at the proposed "Communication of Barack Obama." Information regarding his campaign should be merged to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 page, and the 2008 campaign if there's information regarding it as well. Citing Wikipedia policies, I agree that it should be deleted as per . , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA||WP:BADIDEA||WP:NOT)

Comment: since it has significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying , and since the coverage is not about one event at one instant in time, thus not being a mere news report. Also, the renomination is too soon. I do not see how several of the nominator's rationales apply at all, since it is not a "diary" and not just a listing of statistics. Also, it passes the "not inherited" hurdle, since it has its own coverage, and is not just "This hat is notable because Obama wore it" or equivalent cases.  Being associated with a world-famous person is absolutely not an impediment to achieving independent notability, if it has been noted in sufficient depth by multiple reliable and independent sources, as has this topic. I would applaud creation of Barack Obama's use of social media and the merger to it of this along with his use of Facebook, Youtube, and other social media in his efforts to attain and keep the US presidency, since a comprehensive article would avoid duplication and fragmentation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: There is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Appropriateness_of_.22X_on_Twitter.22_.28or_similar.29_articles|strong community consensus that any X on Twitter article is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. This whole thing is a massive violation of . The idea that you can find sources that mention the words together means there must be an article about it is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever made on Wikipedia. By that same logic we should have articles on Obama and sports, Obama and food, Obama in Washington DC, Obama and terrorists and so forth and so on. This needs to be deleted, and I suppose anything noteworthy should be merged elsewhere but if there were indeed anything noteworthy it would already be in the main article, so we can very easily just delete this whole thing and lose nothing of any value
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: As previously explained and affirmed, anything the leader of the World Community says (i.e. The President of the United States) is oteworthy.  Like it or not.  When President Barack Obama says, televises, delivers via media, or for that matter Tweets something, it carries relevance to the World community.  Therefore, Barack's tweets carry the necessary weight to be termed "Noteworty".  Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga appeal to fanzine-types, and do not carry to weight of World Leadership
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I can't think any other type of website that would pass  or  but would be deleted under . I don't see the point of Twitter-hate--if this were an article about Obama's (or Justin Bieber's) blog it would clearly stand or fall on the notability guidelines alone and not provoke this level of drama. If there's a trivia/indiscriminate info issue it's with article content, not with the mere existence of this article. I don't oppose merging into a broader article, however. Also, I thought that immediate renomination was banned, even with a "no consensus" result. Special:Contributions/169.231.53.116|169.231.53.116
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: as  and trivial. If Obama ever says anything encyclopedic that's 140 characters or less (''and'' that's undeniably from him) it can go into his existing article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: per .  If anything in the content of any individual Tweet (which is likely not done by him anyway....) was really earthshattering, surely it would already be in his main article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per , especially . This article also suffers from a general notability problem. If you pare the lede down per  removing and summarizing all of the unnecessary statistics, you end up with a basic statement that such a twitter account exists, has a lot of followers and is being used. So, what? Where is the lasting notability? These simple statements belong in other articles and the twitter article itself does not rise to the level on its own -- it is trying to inherit its notability from the biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BADIDEA||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: spaced ndash}} This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing the threshold of |notability by easily passing Wikipedia's |General notability guideline. Furthermore, this article is a very reasonable |spin-off from the main Barack Obama article. As the use of online communications, both by the public and by the leaders of nations continues to increase globally, aspects of its usage will only continue to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, which Wikipedia articles are typically based upon. Another idea is to merge the article into a new "Communications of Barack Obama" article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:SPINOFF)