Deletion of Justin Bieber on Twitter

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies despite the fact that it does not explicitly preclude factoid lists. There is an enormous number of references and an enormous load of discussion so it is hard to be sure, but it seems there is no |secondary source on the actual ''topic'' (that is, the significance of Bieber's Twitter account). Anyone writing about Bieber is going to mention his tweets, and anyone talking about big accounts at Twitter is going to mention Bieber—those are reasons for a mention in the respective articles on Bieber and on Twitter, but they are not reasons for editors to |choose commentary to conclude that someone's tweets are notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: it. Hard. |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:ISNOT)

Comment: 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: #NEWS, STATSBOOK, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Point_of_view_forks, EVERYTHING etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTSTATSBOOK||WP:NOTEVERYTHING)

Comment: 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  and .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF||WP:SPLIT||WP:SIZE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:MERGE||WP:NPOV||WP:CENSOR)

Comment: The topic receives consistent, excessive mainstream attention. Additionally, Beiber's activity on twitter has been subject to http://firemark.com/2010/08/25/entertainment-law-update-podcast-episode/ legal discourse and the fervour of his fans has compelled advertising companies to look to twitter. It has a lasting impact in the field of social media and advertising. Additionally, using IAR as a rebuttal to an article passing GNG is an obvious application of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Hey, wait a minute - Jimmy Wales is notable, and so is Reichstag (building)|The Reichstag. Perhaps we could have ... h I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.|oh, hang on a minute
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O)

Comment: I know I'm just reiterating what others have said here, but what a pop singer says online is unencyclopedic, let alone warranting of its own article. If your interested in somebody's Tweets, then do you A) read the person's Tweets or B) read about the Tweets on Wikipedia? I have a feeling almost everybody answers "A". The people who want to keep this page can rewrite it a million times for all I care, but the truth is it is |what Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is DIRECTORY|not a directory, and is also |not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is verifiable and well-sourced doesn't make it suitable for inclusion at Wikipedia. As somebody said above, this is gonna be a tough AfD to close. Does anybody know if we can get Jimbo to close it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: as inappropropriate  giving  weight to  detailed trivial aspects of his biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:UNDUE||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: article, but '''merge''' the non-trivial bits (by which I mean the majority of the article) into Justin Bieber and/or Twitter. I could see how it would be a good example of the power of individual users on Twitter, but a whole article?  seems to apply here, a lot of the article is random facts about individual tweets. From what I've seen of the sources, a large number of them refer to Justin Bieber as the principal subject, and his twitter account only as a side-issue. See  - web content does not necessarily have inherited notability. In addition, if we were to adopt the level of notability for social media that this has, we should note that there are enough sources tangentially covering various topics, with articles being needed for hundreds of public figures on many different kinds of platform. This seems to go against the spirit (if not also the exact letter in every case) of several policies, including  for a start, DIARY, and, again, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WHIM||WP:WEB||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:IINFO)

Comment: Article is reliably sourced.  Article topic easily passes .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Yawn. This is getting annoying.  is not a reason to delete. Get over it people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Although this article isn't my favorite, I want to take this chance to say rather directly that there is no reason to believe this article violates either the letter or the spirit of  in any way that justifies this AfD. Special:Contributions/150.35.244.246|150.35.244.246
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: This is an encyclopedia, |not Twitterpedia. This is just a collection of indiscriminate information that has no notability separate from the original topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as   (specifically item #3 of ).  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 http://www.justinbieber.wikia.com/wiki/Justin_Bieber_Wiki 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.   of  should be a goal of all articles indeed, but they should not be the "be-all-end-all" for inclusion IMHO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTRIVIA||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I can see this content being of use to the relevant biography but not as a fork; the level of sourcing indicates that a reasonably-sized article could be written for Beiber's use of other internet media individually too, which to me seems |unduly weighted towards his use of Twitter (my own personal misgivings for the site aside, it shouldn't be treated as a stand-in for all internet-based promotion). A broader article along the lines of Justin Beiber and social media, Promotion of Justin Beiber, etc, that focuses not on one outlet but on the wider use of media to promote a singer would probably have much greater merit, though given the ''relative'' size of this article and the parent article I'm not sure a fork is even necessary at this stage over a direct merge into Justin Beiber
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Obviously, this is a  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 2009http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/110075/Bieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-pals/Bieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-palsBieber-and-Swift-became-Twitter-pals and a latest being 15 June 2012.http://blogs.ajc.com/the-buzz/2012/06/15/justin-bieber-launches-matt-lauers-twitter-career/ Clearly, that is unusually strong evidence of separate  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,http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2009/08/09/Internet-networking-aiding-singer-Bieber/UPI-54371249850178/ and reliable sources have remarked on it since at least 30 July 2009.http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/jul/30/learn-the-ropes-of-twitter-etiquette/?preventMobileRedirect=1 Beyond being a  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 Wikipedia:Summary style article of that Justin_Bieber#Twitter subsection
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)

Comment: reliably sourced, passes  and per Sven
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as fancruft that is clearly against the policy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: While I appreciate the efforts of Fluffer and John and the new page is indeed improved, it still doesn't meed policy such as  or . An article can be good in appearance but that doesn't mean it is notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT)

Comment: As I understand fancruft being something other than , the article would be of extremely limited interest over a relatively obscure topic where there was limited sourcing.  http://twitter.com/fusetv/status/215126996513071104 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  sources that do more than just mention random tweets Bieber made
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:RS)

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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTDIARY||WP:NOTCASE||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0hfg1htnM4 this - oh how I wish  was a valid argument to use for AfD at times like these
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Because I worry the table above conveyed notability only based on the sources in the table and based on other comments that appear to demonstrate people are not looking at sources as they pertain to notability.  The AVAILABLE sources also go towards explaining relevance more for some of the topics included. The level of coverage also helps argue against  because they show the scope of publications commenting: It is beyond Bieber fans.  (I really don't have the time to format the several thousand sources here that demonstrate notability but hoepfully, the sources encourage people to look at them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: Article is reliably sourced. Passes  with substantial coverage in mainstream sources. Refers to something involving millions of people and millions of dollars. "Delete as cruft" falls under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Meets wp:gng for general notability and wp:web and wp:org for subject matter notability, as the sources are extensive, reliable, and third party. This article's content is like our extensive collection of articles on noted individual blogs or websites (we even cover that long defunct Nupedia site).  The deletes all seem non-policy based around 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BELONG)

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 , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: to the main articles on Justin Bieber or Celebrity use of Twitter. There are some sources about his use of social media, such as the one from ''Time'', but most of the material in the article is ridiculously over detailed and often backed by less-than-credible sources or derived tangentially from sources primarily about things other than his Twitter account. Thus, those sources do not support an argument for |general notability. This is clearly one important aspect of the subject's enormous notoriety, but is a relatively minor one in the context of his life and celebrity
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: pretty clearly a notable topic, as shown by the extensive analysis of the sources further up. Yes, 99% of Twitter accounts aren't notable, but this one is. Merging into Justin Bieber would seem a bad idea, as that article's pretty long already. I have to say I feel a lot of the 'delete' opinions in this AFD basically come down to 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: with no prejudice against adding some of this material into the respective articles about Bieber and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Rationale is simple: Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections of information, and the various splits and related sections (, ) of/from that policy. Need explanation? Let's do an in-depth analysis of section Justin Bieber on Twitter#.40justinbieber|@justinbieber
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTABLOID||WP:NOTFANSITE)