Deletion of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (2nd nomination)

Comment: that it meets |the usual inclusion guideline isn't really disputed (because it goes so far above the beyond the requirements, given the sources cited in the article.  The primary argument for deletion is that the list is indiscriminate.   lists three examples: plot summaries, song lyrics, and statistics dumps, which this is obviously none of.  On the more general question of "Is this indiscriminate?" - the answer is "Reliable sources say no".  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/01/demi-moore-twit.html They http://adage.com/article/the-media-guy/real-meaning-ashton-kutcher-s-1m-twitter-followers/136049/ cover http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/11/ashton-kutcher-twitter/ Kutcher's http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/twittering-celebrities-take-fans-backstage-in-their-lives/ use http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30263363/ns/today-entertainment/t/kutchers-twitter-flock-first-hit-million/#.UCDL_VuXd_t of http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/ashton-kutcher-challenges-cnn-to-twitter-popularity-contest/ twitter http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/04/17/ashton.cnn.twitter.battle/index.html specifically, not merely things Kutcher did that happened to use twitter.  (Though his foot in mouth re:Paterno is of the latter persuation).  Since it meets |the usual inclusion guideline, and isn't indiscriminate or trivia, it's a pretty clear keep.  Merger and/or splitting could be done as makes sense per  and .  Kutcher + Kutcher on Twitter is about 50K, which SPLIT says is about where you should think about division, so it could go either way, and might need to change in the future.  I don't know whether merger would be a problem for UNDUE or not, I could believe either position, I think
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:GNG||WP:UNDUE||WP:SPLIT)