Deletion of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (2nd nomination)

Comment: to Ashton Kutcher, per  and above
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIARY)

Comment: Merge" because Ashton Kutcher on Twitter is the same Ashton Kutcher as elsewhere; the discussed article lacks subject and thus can't be included per  and . "Selective" per DIARY. Also note, per otability|Notability policy, the "topic is rebuttable presumption|presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, ''and is not excluded under |What Wikipedia is not''." —&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:N||WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and #IINFO. The topic is not encyclopedic. The nature of coverage of celebrities in the media is such that almost all aspects of their lives, even very trivial ones, will get extensive media coverage. That does not mean that all aspects of the life of a celebrity merit a Wikipedia article, which is one of the reasons why we have . That the subject meets the GNG is irrelevant to these considerations: meeting the GNG does not mean that something is encyclopedic, or vice versa. And before someone objects that #IINFO only applies to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases and statistics, these are merely meant to be examples of the application of a general principle. As the policy says, ''The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.'' I suppose it would be possible to do some sort of merge, but the target article Ashton Kutcher does already include coverage of his Twitter activities and a merge would have to be very selective to avoid giving |undue weight to this (very small) aspect of this person's life
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIARY||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: I'm still not so sure that this topic is deserving enough for its own article, but I won't contest that it is certainly notable. If the consensus is to keep as it, I'd support it, but overall my preference is to selectively merge into the main Ashton Kutcher article. The article could then be spun out again if it we encounter a  situation. Cheers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:TOOLONG)

Comment: mostly per S Marshall (I don't care for the topic, but it seems to meet our guidelines/polices as they stand).  I'd prefer we move the article to Ashton Kutcher on social media if it is kept however.  Further, I'm having a hard time distinguishing "" from "I don't think this is encyclopedic".  I don't see a case being made that this ''isn't'' encyclopedic other than "it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me" (which is fairly weak) and "not other encyclopedia covers topics like this" which is a lot more reasonable but given the nature of Wikipedia (fast to cover topics) and Twitter (fairly new) it's not a hugely convincing argument that others won't
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The sources such as ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FBrvbaaznYcC&pg=PA75 Share This: The Social Media Handbook for PR Professionals'' or ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CxW4KI8K-24C&pg=PA173 Television Personalities: Stardom and the Small Screen'' demonstrate the notability of the topic.  Those arguing against this seem mainly to present variations of  which are contrary to |multiple |policies.  The slippery slope argument is weak because Ashton Kutcher is unusually outstanding in this field, being the "http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ojaGy-pMLzQC&pg=PA188 King of Twitter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NPOV||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a place to indiscriminately collect information per . The Ashton Kutcher article makes sufficient mention. DIARY applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIARY)

Comment: per Warden. Meets .  is a pitiful cover for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: per my comment in the previous AfD. Nothing's changed,  still stresses that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". GNG is irrelevant when the article has no encyclopedic value
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Most of the content of this article is |trivia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRIVIA)