Deletion of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Comment: per . Either that, or FAC it onto the Main Page, per WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WHIM)

Comment: Meeting  does not presume the article of encyclopedic value. And |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's basically 'on this day he had x number of followers' and 'by this time he was competing with x for' blah blah blah. This is a '''policy''' and certainly trumps the  (a guideline) which others keep citing. IMO these Twitter articles are an embarassment to the whole project
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:GNG)

Comment: Valid  Wikipedia:Summary style of Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence and, to the credit of the editors of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, not much in the way of citing to Kutcher's Twitter account to support the Ashton Kutcher on Twitter article. "became the first Twitter account with 1 million followers in April 2009" - of course the news sources are going to write about his Twitter account and have follow up stories on it, giving Wikipedia plenty of material for the spinout article. Wikipedia:Summary style reqires enough text in the given Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence subtopic to merit its own article, so you might want to expand Wikipedia:Summary style
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article is not about Kutcher's signifcant tweets. That information can/should be in the Biography article, and mainly is. This article is about the media coverage of Kutcher's tweets, and it is using that same media coverage to source itself. That makes the media coverage  in this case, and those sources cannot be used to meet  or any of the salad of policies regarding .  We are not a newspaper, and not a news aggregator. We would need RS covering the coverage to have this type of meta-article meet our policies, we don't have those sources and I have been unable to find them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:N||WP:BLPN)

Comment: In my opinion, this is a synthesis of published material that advances a position (Wp:Synth) which is the claim that this Twitter account is notable: it seems that the significant coverage in reliable sources doesn't establishes a presumption that this subject is suitable for being included in any kind of encyclopedia (, last point of the list), it could be treated as a pure curiosity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Passes . ikiProject Business|Marketing, ikiProject Media|Media and ikiProject Internet|Technology are all valid encyclopaedic subjects
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:W||WP:W||WP:W)

Comment: The key issue here is that to establish |notability we're looking for articles that are ''substantially'' about the subject, not just mention it. There seem to be no sources that are solely or primarily about the Twitter account of this person, so clearly the sources are being used in a very -like manner. You can basically find source mentions of any topic, but just having footnotes doesn't mean that a topic is notable -- they ''must'' be of a certain caliber and depth into the subject when notability is disputed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: passes easily 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: When I saw this mentioned on DGG's page, I was certain I was going to come here and request not just deletion, but complete and utter destruction. But, after reading the comments here, and thinking about it, and checking the article itself, this article is essentially the equivalent of The Rest of the Story--it's a description of a particular type of published content, that has importance (notability, in our terms) independent of the author himself (or his publicists--whoever actually writes the content). It seems problematic because we have no easy way to title the article that makes it clear that this is an article about a work of literature (I mean that in the broad, postmodern sense), but, nonetheless, this is what it covers. Now, merger may be appropriate, but I think that such a discussion would occur better on Talk:Ashton Kutcher, as such a discussion might need more than the AfD format (and time limit) can provide. If you want the WP terms, this subject meets  and thus is notable enough for an article, and I see no pressing other need to demand deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While I'm not a huge fan of more of these articles, the article passes independent .  The articles have value in that they explain how social media and current culture work and would probably be useful in marketing, communications or popular culture studies classes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Notable article.  is not a reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: the applicable policy here is |...not case studies, which states that we should be cautious in how we treat "situation X in location Y" or "version X of item Y" types of articles. There ARE enough sources to create articles about ''television appearances of Barack Obama'', ''newspaper coverage of Barack Obama'', ''humor and entertainment of Barack Obama'', and any other number of forks. (And you can see how similar articles could be written for other major public figures.) The principle at play in  is that we can let sources dictate what verifiable content should appear in articles, but not always the proportion or organization of said articles. It's possible that ''celebrities on Twitter'' or some other article would make sense. But we already have Twitter usage and there has to be an intelligent way to fork this, instead of creating numerous articles about case by case by case. Again, |Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCASE||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)