View source for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter

===[[Justin Bieber on Twitter]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}}

:{{la|Justin Bieber on Twitter}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 29#{{anchorencode:Justin Bieber on Twitter}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{•}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter Stats]</span>)
:({{Find sources|Justin Bieber on Twitter}})
This is not a notable topic. Notability is not inherited and twitter accounts like youtube videos or email address or stretch of highway or sites with many visitors simply do not carry on the notability of the artwork, city, highway, or person they are associated with. All the sources are about Justin Bieber not about his account itself, this could be merged into one sentence in his article and this article deleted as it is not notable at all. [[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]]) 07:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep''' Not all the sources are about the Twitter account. Some are about how ("random comments") or how often it is used ("Twitter addict"). Most are about what was written in it. For the sake of the normal use of modern English, I cannot really support taking Justin Bieber's name out of this article completely, but if one did so, it would still have import. This article is, at 70K, bigger than the [[Justin Bieber]] article at 62K. A merge is out of the question. [[User:Anarchangel|Anarchangel]] ([[User talk:Anarchangel|talk]]) 08:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's been rated a good article.  Sourced, notable per press coverage, and the article is about the twitter account not just Bieber, despite what the proposer says.  I know a lot of people hate Bieber and Twitter and think Wikipedia should only cover high-minded topics like Latin poetry, dead presidents, and Star Trek, but reflecting the decline of human civilisation to the level of bum-scratching apes is not a valid reason for deletion. --[[User:Colapeninsula|Colapeninsula]] ([[User talk:Colapeninsula|talk]]) 09:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
**You could have fooled me that people think that those are our topic foci.  Our articles on {{On AFD|Latin mnemonics}}, {{On AFD|Handedness of Presidents of the United States|List of United States presidents by handedness}}, and {{On AFD|Pon farr}} have all been nominated for deletion.  {{On AFD| Argument from beauty|Argument from beauty (2nd nomination)}} was nominated for deletion, twice, and that's had eight centuries of scholarly analysis from ''[[Summa Theologica]]'' onwards, some of it ''in'' Latin.  This whole idea that Wikipedians want to focus upon high-minded topics is just nonsense, and unsupported rhetoric that other Wikipedians use in arguments like this.  The reality is a lot more complex. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 09:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''' We can't just keep articles related to celebrities that are often "hated on" that is an invalid argument and public figures are all widely beloved and despised. The merits of this article are insufficient for an article independent of the [[Justin Bieber]] article and the Celebrity use of Twitter article where this minor content belongs, and is more appropriate.[[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]])  14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' : 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 [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] was a valid argument to use for AfD at times like these. --[[User:Ritchie333|<font color="#7F007F">'''Ritchie333'''</font>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<font color="#7F007F">''(talk)''</font>]] 10:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I don't hate Justin Bieber he's very sexy actually and Twitter is something I use and love daily, nevertheless when you say in the defense of this article, "'''he is the second most popular celebrity Twitter'''" you are talking about Justin Bieber and not the account, this content should be merged into the Bieber article and summarized, it is not notable on its own weight and has a place on that article, notability is just not inherited. [[User:Luciferwildcat|LuciferWildCat]] ([[User talk:Luciferwildcat|talk]]) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*****'''Comment:''' 3% of the servers does not have to do with the specific account.  The marketing aspects of it do not have to do with Bieber.  There are a number of non-Bieber marketing sources talking about it.  The academic sources talking about how his account were a central node of discussion around the Arab spring are not about Bieber, but the fans talking retweeting and commenting on content around it. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 23:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites|list of Websites-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>[[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)</small>
*<s>'''Weak Keep'''</s> This does not meet the same level of quality and in-depth focus of Ashton Kutcher's Twitter activity, but it does appear that his activity on Twitter gets unique and independent coverage that goes beyond mere detailing of what he's tweeting about.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Keep''' Upon further inquiry I am convinced this is more than suitable for an independent article. --[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 23:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' on principle. Really? The unfiltered musings of a teenage singer have their own page in an encyclopedia? Sometimes its best to ignore the rules lawyering, go for common sense, and just delete this fantarding nonsense. [[User:Hekerui|Hekerui]] ([[User talk:Hekerui|talk]]) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
**Bieber, like most major public figures, has a notable impact on culture and society. How his activity on a major social networking service such as Twitter has enabled him to amplify that impact seems to me a matter "worthy of notice" and we have the sources to demonstrate as much. Maybe you fail to see the encyclopedic purpose of detailing how a specific person has influenced the use of a service or influenced society through said service, but I think there is a more-than-reasonable argument to be made that an article on a pop culture icon's social networking activities can and does serve as an informative insight into our fast-moving inter-connected culture in the Age of the Internet. Should you have issues with wording [[WP:FIXIT|there is a way to address that]].--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as fancruft. This sets a sort of precedent for other silly, pop-culture articles; if we can keep this, why not create things about various other artists or (heaven forbid!) an artist outside the English-speaking world. The article may have reliable sources, but those sources are worthless if the topic is not notable. It has admittedly received significant coverage in reliable sources, but ''any'' out-of-the-ordinary remark a celebrity makes on Twitter will receive some coverage. I, like Ritchie333, wish that IDON'TLIKEIT were valid at this point. [[User:Interchangeable|<font color="blue">Inter</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Interchangeable|<font color="green">change</font>]][[User talk:Interchangeable|<font color="blue">able</font>]] 23:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as fancruft, ie, [[WP:FART]].[[User:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">Pumpkin</font><font color="darkblue">Sky</font>]] [[User talk:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">talk</font>]] 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as fancruft; let Wikia have it, though.
*: Note, this has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion]]. [[User:Br&#39;er Rabbit|Br&#39;er Rabbit]] ([[User talk:Br&#39;er Rabbit|talk]]) 23:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
* '''Keep:''' Article is reliably sourced.  Article topic easily passes [[WP:GNG]].  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. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 23:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Here are some examples of the very much not fantard reasons for keeping this article: [http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/06/14/the-might-of-justin-bieber-gets-between-twitter-and-wikipedia/] [http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/233057-climate-activists-take-aim-at-justin-bieber-twitter-record] [http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/justin-biebers-world-record-tweet-challenged-by-pringles-3151801.html] [http://mashable.com/2010/09/07/justin-bieber-twitter/] [http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/justin-bieber-abuses-twitter-phone-gag-may-get-sued-596123]. Obviously the significance of Bieber's presence on Twitter is far greater than just any random pop culture icon's presence on any random social network. Stop with the pop-hate and try to consider that it may actually be as notable an aspect of the singer as his actual musical productions.--[[User:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|The Devil&#39;s Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil&#39;s Advocate|talk]]) 23:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)