Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, I am not sure how a person's account on Twitter can be seen as being worthy of an account.

Things like Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Justin Bieber on Twitter just became a WP:GA and there is a lot of encyclopedic content that belongs in this article that is to detailed for a general biography. The article clearly passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep although when I passed the Justin Bieber on Twitter GA, I did note that I don't really like Twitter articles. However, it passes WP:GNG so it is acceptable. Regards, ⇒TAP 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and close Things like people having no policy-based deletion listings make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. Lugnuts (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, it simply breaks the first pillar of Wikipedia. The supposed compliance with WP:GNG does not exist: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. [...] For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Picking over the sources I can see find only newspapers and magazines, these sources just say "Kutcher has a twitter" and "he uses it" but nothing stating Kutcher's twitter has some notability or "it has a stand-alone notability". Who puts "keep" is claiming, more or less, "everything cited on a newspaper is relevant to an encyclopedia".--Vituzzu (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Vituzzu and WP:NOT. <begin rant>These "X on twitter" articles have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and keeping any of them devalues the whole Wikipedia project and the fact that some in the community can even consider them for inclusion (one has become a GA!!) makes me feel less inclined to contribute to WP in the future.</end rant>--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 20:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Loathing for the subject, and its implications for the fate of Wikipedia and humanity generally. But undoubtedly notable. Lots of verifiable facts to prove general fame and popularity, let alone notability, plus "They <Kutcher and GF> were a measuring stick by which Twitter was determined to have gone mainstream in early 2009.", currently in List of Twitter users, which was kept by default at AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment Please don't take this as argumentative or confrontational as it's not meant to be. But the sentence "They <Kutcher and GF> were a measuring stick by which Twitter was determined to have gone mainstream in early 2009." and the accompanying source is evidence for the notability of the Twitter article, not a justification for an entire article on Kutcher's Twitter account. And, to paraphrase Vituzzu's comments, non-notability is a definite reason to delete an article but the reverse is not necessarily true. Notability ("fame and popularity") is not a guarantee for inclusion. If an article doesn't measure up to any of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, the "fundamental principles" of the project, it shouldn't be included. This article doesn't measure up to the first pillar: there's no redeeming academic value, it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Quote and source are evidence for the notability of the article in question, also. You have not said why you feel INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS apply, so I will not address those. I would love for "academic value" to be given the weight of a rule or essay as a point in favor of inclusion, like a sort of tiebreaker, but AFAIK it has no standing in a deletion discussion, nor would I want it to. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As an academic writing in this area, yes, there is redeeming academic value. --LauraHale (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Academic writing? --Vituzzu (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My doctoral thesis is in this area, and I've had more conversations with academics about Twitter, Twitter's role in society, Twitter metrics than you'd probably like to know. I've also talked to people in three departments in my university about this topic in how to design coursework related to this topic, and I've given a training session for industry folks where this type of material would be covered. Twitter is being written about extensively in various parts of the academic world. If you want to cry no-academic value, as some one in that space, it doesn't wash. I suppose the people writing about extinct birds and first century generals from Greece are unlikely to write about Twitter academically, but others in communications, popular culture studies, sociology and business are. --LauraHale (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My claim is that there is no academic value in maintaining individual "X on Twitter" articles (I should have been more clear on that). We already have an article, Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians where the use of these Twitter accounts can written about and centralized. If that's not enough, see my suggestions below. After all, if I'm reading what your saying correctly, it's the use of these twitter accounts that is of interest, not the existence of them. The individual "X on Twitter" articles just border on WP:Fancruft.

That would be nice. I have a whole chapter in my thesis about a specific twitter account. There is academic value in maintaining these because they are a great launching off point for people in several fields doing work in this area. The individual articles, which clearly pass WP:GNG, offer valid case studies. This is why they are of academic interest, despite the claims you're making otherwise. --LauraHale (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: While I'm not a huge fan of more of these articles, the article passes independent WP:GNG. 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. --LauraHale (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I would think that the information that provides "value in that they explain how social media and current culture work" should be in the twitter article. If, indeed, it is the case that there is some useful academic information it should be combined into a "meta-article" such as "Twitter in Marketing" or "Twitter's use in popular culture" and have these "famous and popular" examples redirected and included as examples, rather than having multiple individual "X on Twitter" articles and dealing with the same issues every time a new one comes up.

How long do you propose making these articles if you include all the heavily covered WP:GNG eligible Twitter accounts? The case studies these articles represent in an academic sense would quickly explode out a page and could not be dealt with with out presenting WP:UNDUE problems. I think you're trying to cite academic work as an excuse with out having much familiarity with the multi-discplinary work being done in this sphere. WP:IDONTLIKEIT appears to me what the argument boils down because the academic one is not a valid argument. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So why doesn't it fall under WP:OR? (Theoretically it could have been a COI too) --Vituzzu (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing is reliably sourced, passes WP:GNG, does not do WP:SYNTH to try to push a point of view that the sources do not support. Hence, it is not WP:OR. What sort of WP:COI are you implying? If you're implying Tony has one, I need to see some evidence of it. If you're implying I have it, early draft of my thesis shows this has little to do with my methodological approach and isn't fundamental to my topic. I'm not supporting this with the intention of using it in a classroom. As an argument had been made this was not of academic interest, I pointed out it clearly WAS of academic interest. No WP:COI there. Go fish again? --LauraHale (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to deem it fishing but, again, it's always you saying it has some academic interest, it has a "stand-alone" importance, all the infos in the page are in topic (even these) and, finally, it's always you saying it passes WP:GNG. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You said it doesn't have academic interest, based on criteria I do not understand. The article clearly passes WP:GNG because Kutcher's Twitter usage has been covered independently of other Kutcher topics. I think there would be a struggle for over half the articles on Wikipedia to have as many media references as Kutcher on Twitter. And the topic does have stand alone importance because the goal to get a million followers was widely covered by the media and demonstrates social media related issues in wider culture and marketing. You've yet to demonstrate the topic doesn't pass WP:GNG unless you dismiss thousands of articles from multiple media organisations from several different places around the globe. You haven't offered a compelling reason why this would not be of academic interest, despite claiming it isn't. Google Scholar shows you're wrong about academic interest. This appears to be a fishing expedition, especially when WP:COI was thrown in, in order to justify a vote based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like articles about Pokemon or Bieber albums but they pass WP:GNG so they stay. --LauraHale (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So your best point is in order to justify a vote based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is it a kind invite to leave the discussion? Again, you're both producing and judging academic production about that topic, that's a form of COI, since is quite natural all of us will tend to underline the relevance of his own research topics. I already said why, according to me, it doesn't pass the GNG and the only answer I got is such a sort of mantra "it passes WP:GNG" (repeated n-times). As I tried to say dozens of times nothing shows it has an "stand-alone" relevancy, it can be easily summarized and merged into Kutcher's page. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep His twitter actions do get ample press coverage. Having read through the article, I see it is clearly a valid content fork from his main article. Dream Focus 21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Marketing, Media and Technology are all valid encyclopaedic subjects. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Non-vote consensus?

• Neutral for now(?) - This AFD should have been opened as "{{not a vote}}" at the start. Therefore, voting would have been avoided or lessened, even if numerous "keeps" would make this discussion SNOWy. "Keeps" rely on WP:GNG as part of argument, yet even news media is insufficient proof that this topic is actually notable; one article or 1,000 articles do not prove sufficiency, but at least they're trying. Nevertheless, real-life events happen, and impact (i.e. effects from and on this topic) has been well-sourced enough to balance this article. Hopefully, one academic source, like a peer journal, a published essay, or some mainstream book, would have been enough for this topic to pass GNG. As I'm reading WP:notability, I figured that the notability of this has gained due to some pedophilia case in football and the notable celebrity himself. Nevertheless, I'm reading WP:notability (events) and WP:notability (web), and maybe those who want to vote must study these after this post and before voting. --George Ho (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  Time Magazine [1] covers how popular the guy's account is. And this article isn't about one event, its about someone's twitter account which has had multiple events which have been covered in the media. We wouldn't create an entire article for just one media covered twitter event. Dream Focus 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if it passes WP:GNG; 1,000 news sources do not implicate widespread attention. To me, GNG is poorly cited, so I can't use it for arguments. I don't think "(events)" applies because the subject was used by the celebrity for such events. Nevertheless, let's use "(web)" then:

  Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote.

  The above quote passes by the impact Ashton made on Twitter: the loss of Demi, and the shutdown itself.

  When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.

  Challenging CNN for bed sheets that reduce risks of malaria helps this topic achieve it. Fortunately, it passes "WP:Notability (web)" because of those events and other events that meet above, but how does it pass GNG? I crossed out my neutrality because I'm starting to figure out that this topic meets (an)other subject-notability guideline(s). --George Ho (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Shall I add {{not a vote}} in this arbitrary break then? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  What are your thoughts on the academic references available to cite? --LauraHale (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Some are inaccessible, as purchase is required. There are some with full access: AAAI.org. I'm still finding ones that pass "significant coverage" and all other criteria of GNG. I get a feeling that GNG is the most unique yet misunderstood or miscited. Many sources there discuss popularity of Kutcher's account and trivially Kutcher's use of Twitter. Someone can be brave enough to go through all Scholar results... I don't know if I'm the one. --George Ho (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Nomination doesn't state any grounds for deletion. I don't care how useless twitter is, I'm sure the nominator has written articles I would personally find useless. But my subjective view is not relevant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Opinion piece from AdAge.com can be part of Reception on this topic; what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Keep this article! I agree with Tony here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Guy has a lot of Twitter followers. So what? pbp 22:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep Notable article. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Statυs (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it isn't. Fortunately, no one uses that argument. Instead there have been arguments about content, encyclopedic quality, whether to merge, etc. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have an argument in favor of keeping it--so can I refer you to WP:ILIKEIT? Drmies (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Down this path lies madness. The President of the USA is regularly covered by newspapers, but does that mean we should have a Barack Obama in the New York Times section? Obviously the Ashton Kutcher article should have a paragraph or two about his presence on Twitter, but having an entirely separate article for what at the end of the day boils down to a single factoid ("first use with a million followers") is complete overkill and serves no useful purpose. Jpatokal (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• Questions It seems that this article is about a publisher of information and their means of publishing it, is that not one valid way to look at this? Are there publisher/publishing notability guidelines that should or do exist? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep Given the citations available and the arguments above and below, this appears to be a notable and discrete topic in the "new media" category, like the articles about individual "blogs." Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 - Relisting

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Valid WP:GNG 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. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. - For what it's worth, I recently iVoted to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal life of Jennifer Lopez largely because it failed Wikipedia:Summary style, due in part to the lack of cooperation with the editors of the Jennifer Lopez article and lack of restraint in adding trivial details to the Personal life of Jennifer Lopez article. The 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' article has cooperation with the editors of the Ashton Kutcher (even though there is some disagreement) and shows retraint on adding trivial details to the 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' article. Plus, it has what I noted above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. While Ashton Kutcher is notable, I can't imagine why a Twitter account would need a Wikipedia article. JIP | Talk 10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The same reasons Sam and Diane from Cheers need an article about themselves, which I created. Frankly, it was nominated as AFD, but the nomination was withdrawn. Unfortunately, in this case, the bickering about Twitter and Ashton Kutcher can't go away here. --George Ho (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: 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 (WP:GNG, last point of the list), it could be treated as a pure curiosity.--Nickanc (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Because his twitter account has gotten ample coverages in the media, for being so popular, as well as various things that have happened involving it. That isn't synthesis. Dream Focus 16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question LauraHale, you mentioned your thesis, and said one of the chapters was on a particular twitter account. I gather it's not his, or you would have said so, so what account is it? (if you don't want to be specific, what type of account--a person in what field?) Second, do you think you could in fact do a chapter on his? and do you think an academic article on his would be accepted by a first-rate journal? Third, perhaps you could summarize some of the paywalled sources in terms of how much of the content is about this account in particular? DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• DGG: I have (sub after reorganisation) chapters on Brendon Fevola on Twitter and Anna Meares on Twitter, with a fair bit about Zac Dawson on Twitter. Very early drafts of this material can be found here, here and here. If anyone created those, I'd probably support deletion of them. As Kutcher is not an Australian sport topic, it would not fit into my topic. I could probably easily write a paper about Kutcher on Twitter. If I was very motivated, I could probably get it published in an academic journal of first rate in popular culture, but you'd be looking at a six month to two year lag AFTER I submitted it. (Conference presentation would thus be easier.) I've had a debate as to whether or not I could probably get away with, with conference organiser permission, present Justin Bieber on Twitter as a conference "paper" but that's because the quality of that article is much, much higher. (If I wanted to spend the time, there are a number of accounts that I could probably do that for.) It is important to remember that with a topic like social media, there is going to be an academic lag in writing about it. (Thus, conference papers better.) The publishing methods do not allow for faster times to publish. Hence, there is a reliance on newspaper sources.--LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Specifically looking behind pay wall data bases I have access to, I can see one article directly on this topic: "The real meaning of Ashton Kutcher's 1M Twitter followers. Dumenco, Simon; Dumenco, Simon., Advertising Age (0001-8899)" One article that specifically mentions Kutcher and Twitter in the abstract is "Ulanoff L. Facebook Challenges Twitter to Celebrity Deathmatch!. PC Magazine [serial online]. June 2009;28(6):1. Available from: Computers & Applied Sciences Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 18, 2012." This abstract says: "This article discusses how the social network Facebook is trying to encourage celebrities into using their website to connect with others. The author speculates that this effort is in direct response to rival social network Twitter. The press release available from Facebook on how celebrities and brands can transform their pages is discussed. Celebrities who use Twitter and Facebook include actor Ashton Kutcher and basketball player Shaquille O'Neal. It is suggested that despite the press release, Facebook is still more complex to use than Twitter." The following also mentions both together: The Twitter scorecard. Publishers Weekly. 256.20 (May 18, 2009) p4. Word Count: 182. From Literature Resource Center. The first sentence says: "Although everyone's still a little unsure of just how valuable a Twitter following is--does Ashton Kutcher really have more pull than CNN?--celebrities, news organizations and entertainment conglomerates are scrambling to get more followers on the social networking site. " Another article behind a pay wall is Wheaton K. Twitter no substitute for good ol' one-way communication. Advertising Age [serial online]. April 20, 2009;80(14):25. Available from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 18, 2012.. Abstract is: "The article discusses actor Ashton Kutcher, and his race to become the first user of the social messaging tool Twitter to obtain one million followers. It is said that Kutcher's use of billboards and television appearances to advertise his Twitter stunt was contrary to the spirit of online social networking." Reading the articles about Kutcher and Twitter, they come from a popular culture studies or marketing discipline. The focus is not on Ashton himself, but rather the use of Twitter as a platform for communication and the effectiveness of Kutcher (and thus other celebrities like him) in tasks like fund raising, getting media attention, promoting causes and doing outreach. Without reading the current article, I'd expect this to be a major focus where Kutcher is almost the side story. (Which is the case for the Bieber article.) If the article is about Kutcher, it is doing it wrong. Hopefully, that answers your questions. (Please don't ask me to write about this academically. :) )--LauraHale (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• More comment on this. danah boyd is one of THE leaders in the field of social media research. (My supervisor has been urging me to cite Boyd more.) danah boyd wrote: 7.To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter

Alice Marwick; danah boyd. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. May 2011. Vol.17,Iss.2;p.139 - 158. Source: SAGE Premier 2012. Kutcher's practices for use on Twitter were repeatedly cited in this paper and how it compares to others, in some cases explaining how this conceputalizes how Twitter itself is understood. Quote: "Responsiveness on Twitter is variable: while Ashton Kutcher may not write back to his fans, a fan will typically write back to him, and Ashton Kutcher will typically respond to other celebrities. This type of public recognition marks certain people as more important than others." And yeah, the existing article is pretty crap in that it focuses on Twitter metrics, with out contextualizing WHY this is encyclopediac. --LauraHale (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete There's some synthesis going on here, and the subject can have ample coverage in the articles on Ashton Kutcher and Twitter. Frankly, all of these Celebrity X on Twitter articles are embarrassing and they all need to be merged into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and leave it at that. AniMate 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep 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 WP:GNG and thus is notable enough for an article, and I see no pressing other need to demand deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep For my tastes, all the celebrity-twitter-related articles should be deleted, starting from Justin Bieber on Twitter, but looking at cited (and not cited) sources this subject clearly passes our notability guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge 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 WP:NOT 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. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Quoting from the part on case studies: "This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest." In the case of of Ashton Kutchet, it does represent that as the research done by academics and the mentions in several marketing related texts demonstrate. This doesn't hold true for say an article titled Anna Meares on Twitter where her Twitter usage doesn't pass WP:GNG and does not represent "some culturally significant phenomenon" because her use and place inside the Twitter hierarchy isn't particularly noteworthy. I think you'd be lucky to have maybe 20 accounts which would pass this threshold, as demonstrated by the Rhianna article being deleted. (And a deletion I fully supported. Nothing noteworthy about her usage and nothing that demonstrated "some culturally significant phenomenon".) --LauraHale (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- most of the "X on Twitter" articles are borderline or delete candidates, and most popular culture figures who use twitter cannot sustain a sub-discussion fork to "X on Twitter", but the article is well-sourced. A merge to the main article would be inappropriate because it would dominate an article that is already pushing prime article length. It would be nice if the photo represented Kutcher specifically on Twitter, but that's no reason to delete. I'm generally against expanding celebrity worship on WP, but this article more than passes the bar. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete after merging a very slimmed down version to the main article. --Bensin (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question for Bensin: The main article being Twitter? Because of the focus on follower totals and the relative weight of these statistics towards understanding how Twitter works as a marketing and social tool? --LauraHale (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that the "main article" be Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the information on Kutcher would fit there? It would seem, unless scaled back to one or two sentences, it would be WP:UNDUE. The list also has a current US centric problem. Hugo Chavez's use of Twitter is not included, and he gave away a house to his I believe three-millionth follower. There is nothing in there about the South Australian Tourist board use of celebrities to promote Kangaroo Island, and this recieved a fair amount of Australian coverage. The article as it stands is awful and I think a good rewrite would end up removing him as there are many, many, many celebrities and politicians use Twitter. Can you please explain why you think Kutcher would be relevant? --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer to LauraHale: Thats a good question! Perhaps it's best to split the article and merge the parts into Ashton Kutcher, Twitter and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. Any description and important examples of how Twitter works as a marketing and social tool belongs in the article about Twitter. --Bensin (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep – To recognize its role in the contemporary cultural, social, and economic scene. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is questioning Twitters role in contemporary society, but that role is best described in the article about Twitter. --Bensin (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Up to what level? Although, if I didn't make it clear before, I'm more or less referring to celebrities like Kutcher (including Gaga, Bieber, Britney, etc) on Twitter. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a common article for all celebrities on Wikipedia. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, because it's a legitimate source of information as a stand-alone article, and then, in general, X_on_Twitter only has to solve the same problem WikiProject:Numbers had, how far to go? Laura mentioned, what, ten, 20 at best? Hardly the plague most of the Merge/Deletes seems to be fearing, especially when 1089_(number) isn't a problem.

woops, signature. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I usually argue WP should be about Cézanne and Niobium, with most anything BLP avoided. However, in this case Kutcher's twitter acct has made a lot of contemporary news: CNN, Wired, NPR and the NYT. I hate this topic, but it is a highly notable cultural trend and in particular has been around for several years, so I think it's time to bite the bullet and declare it OK. -- Ultracobalt  (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - it's a minor section in his bio , not a separate article bloated by trivia. - Youreallycan 23:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Based on a re-reading of LauraHales information about the sources and their significance, it seems to be there is no substantial basis for the separate notability of this subject, and it constitutes excessive coverage, even by our usually very liberal standards for popular celebrities. The keep arguments basically are saying that the use of twitter by such individuals is a notable subject; I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that the use of it by any one particular individual celebrity is therefore separately notable. I think it would take unusually strong evidence to justify such a split, and the evidence here is a great deal weaker than that, and weaker even by our usual standards. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a misperception of the argument, which is that given the amount and wide nature of sources that discuss this individual's publications in the new medium, it is a notable and discreet topic by the wider world's standards and therefore by Wikipedia's. Outlets that popularize a new medium or have used it in a distinct way are often the subject of their own article (see eg., Nupedia (long defunct), SCOTUSblog (ongoing) etc., etc.) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards for keeping an article does not require an academic article that would be accepted by a first-rate journal. Wikipedia's articles do not need to meet FA standards to be kept and the request for LauraHales' information and opinion about the sources and their significance towards an academic article that would be accepted by a first-rate journal is not a way to judge a basis for the separate notability of this subject. My own research turned up more than 240 news articles having Kutcher and Twitter in the title of the news article alone, more than enough to populate article topic subsections such as History, Twitter usage as a communication platform, Reaction, etc. and to provide strong evidence of separate WP:GNG notability of this topic. In a sense, this is a new type of article for Wikipedia. We have articles on newspapers, magazines, and other media communication outlets such as the Oprah Winfrey Network. In the "X on Twitter, Facebook, etc." article, you have a media communication outlet essentially run by one person (probably with the help of their team, publicists, lawyers, etc.), with content covering one person, where that single person media communication outlet is written about by numerous Wikipedia reliable sources (which makes it Wikipedia notable). Because of the newness of these types of article, there's no direct pattern of subsection headings in which to structure the article around, so initially we're going to get some articles longer than they should be and not as well structured as they should be (which is not a reason to delete). We should not crush these new type of Wikipedia articles; instead, we should let them develop and bring out a structured pattern based on a thorough survey of the relevant literature, which will include scholarly articles in the future per LauraHale. In advance of that, looking at the subsections for The New York Times and other media communication outlet articles may provide some guidance: History (straight forward and always a must in my book), Ownership (we assume it's one person but research focused on this would show it probably is a team effort), Content (probably not as important as it is for the New York Times), Usage as a communication platform (LauraHale's suggestion; the article largely should focus on this), Reaction (yes, this is important). There's probably are other subsections that would fit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3 - Relisting, Part Deux

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• Relisting comment I'm relisting this for another week, as although there has been a lot of participation, there seems scant regard for actually building a compelling case for deletion.
  • Many keep !voters cited the WP:GNG. Most of the delete !voters have thus far seemed unable to challenge the assertion that it does meet the GNG, with only George Ho suggesting somehow that 1,000 newspaper articles does not satisfy the GNG. This strikes me as an implausible reading of both the plain words of the GNG and long-standing practice at AfD and DRV.
  • Some delete !voters advanced the view that the article breaches WP:SYNTH. I have not seen any argument advanced as to how exactly the article is synthesising published material to advance a position. If it is, it should surely be discernible what the position it is advancing is. User:Nickanc advances the argument that the synthesis is to push the position that the topic is notable. This seems like a frankly mad argument to me. It misunderstands the nature of notability and also misunderstands the desideratum behind having a policy against original research, of which the ban on synthesis is a section. All Wikipedia articles synthesise notability from multiple sources: is Tom Cruise notable because Time wrote about him? No. Is he notable because USA Today wrote about him? No. Is he notable because Time, USA Today, MSNBC, Entertainment Weekly and the BBC have written about him. Sure. Is this synthesis? In the common and ordinary sense of the term, yes. But that's uninteresting. The policy on WP:SYNTHESIS is what is included in the article, not on what decisions go on behind the scenes about notability.
    • Perhaps instead those suggesting WP:SYNTH are suggesting that the article has to synthesise together sources that cover both Twitter and Ashton Kutcher. That's sort of what articles do. How is this different from, say, the article on Christianity and homosexuality or World War II and American animation?
      • Bleh. I agree that it is perhaps better to leave the notability policy out of the test for synthesis, but I disagree with your reasoning that it would fail that test. Synthesis is advancing a new third conclusion based on two or more disparate facts. The fact that a person is in X number of news stories can be expressed as X separate facts, but they are so similar, it is unnecessary. And the conclusion that is reached is always the same no matter which news stories or how many. Assessing the value of the sources themselves is complicated (substantial coverage? independent?), but counting them up is the most basic of calculations and is allowed under WP:CALC. Anarchangel (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Then there's WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm not sure that this works too well either. I'm not wild about the way the article is structured, but I cannot for the life of me see how that based on the sources used, one can honestly say that it is indiscriminate. It covers the stated topic perfectly well enough.
  • The primary reason seems to be a non-policy-based expression of frustration: "Down this path lies madness", making "a mockery of building an encyclopedia" etc. Frustration and dislike of celebrity culture is perfectly understandable (I share absolutely no desire to follow Mr Kutcher's tweets) but basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a Keep voter, but I think that several Delete voters have been building a compelling case as well, mostly based on excessive coverage (for instance, there is coverage of Barack Obama every day in reliable sources, but I hope we don't make a Barack Obama in the News on 24 June 2012 article...). DGG leans on this argument in a particularly compelling argument. I'm not convinced, but I do think that it is a compelling case that could build consensus; I agree that relisting is a good idea, but mainly because I don't see one side as forming a consensus over the other. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete 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 WP:SYNTH-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. Steven Walling • talk 23:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You need to check the sources again with special attention to articles like this Time magazine article and this New York Times article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Once again, those sources are not solely or primarily about Ashton's Twitter, but rather about Celebrity use of Twitter overall. The content that is substantially about the Ashton Kutcher account is relatively small. Having a series of articles like this when the sources that are reliable only support notability for general celebrity use of Twitter is not appropriate. Steven Walling • talk 02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
      • This reasoning is rather weak in light of the countervailing standard that a particularly noted intersection or outlet of "new media" and another topic, like "celebrity" (or "encyclopedias" or "breaking news" or any other general topic), make for a focused article on in depth aspects of the other topics, as well as its own. (See also, The Washington Post [2] and AdAge). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • On reading the policy on synthesis you seem to be trying to explain your point with, it still seems entirely unrelated; or if I interpret it in a way that is related, an inaccurate accusation. Any claims made in the article about Ashton Kutcher's twitter usage and it's treatment in the media seem to be verifiable in the associated sources. If you're talking about claims made on this page, of course, WP:SYNTHNOT, though just an essay, the forth section explains the issue with that appropriately. As for just looking at notability, note that 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material'. And while I'm sure anything anyone says about Ashton seems trivial (I know it does to me), the reason for having more than a trivial mention is noted further down, in WP:WHYN, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." This is clearly not an issue for this article. In other words, if either of these concerns were particularly valid, to say nothing of being grounds for deletion, there would be notable problems with the article itself, such as a preponderance of unsupported statements, or the article would be nothing more than a stub with no hope for expansion. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment- Just for kicks, must I remind you this for historical study: WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back into AK's main article (which is surprisingly short and begs for why this is spun out?), and if necessary from there, spin out the filmography of AK into a separate article. Because this involves a BLP, as much of the BLP information should be kept in a single article to make its maintenance simpler. It's not that this isn't notable, but because of how we handle BLPs, we need to be really careful when we do these types of spinouts. (This is a problem all the "X on Twitter" articles have). --MASEM (t) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see what good a redirect would do. Some of the content--some of it--could find a way into his main article, but this thing as an article in its own right is ridiculous. What's the purpose? (That's a rhetorical question.) There is nothing encyclopedic, of lasting value, about this article that is somehow separate from the subject himself to such an extent that it needs to be treated separately (like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, which has little to do with Obama and everything with BLP violations pre-redacted); it seems, rather, an excuse to collect a bunch of facts and numbers to create a DYK/GA, riding on the wave of X on Twitter. Which reminds me: someone needs to write Twitter on Twitter--should be easy. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So, I ended up running myself all around Wikipedia to see if I could find an actual basis for the conclusions you've drawn about the article being ridiculous or having no encyclopedic value; the crux of your argument to delete much more so than aspersions on author motivations. As of yet, I haven't found much, so if you could offer up something to justify deletion more concrete than the, as already identified, very 'idon'tlikeit' frustration, that'd be helpful...Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • You didn't have to run anywhere--you could just read my comment. "I don't like it"? Do you have anything to offer besides "it's a legitimate source of information as a stand-alone article", which is nothing but "because I say so"? Drmies (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • We need policy to justify -not- deleting the article now? Well then, let's start from the beginning. It passes WP:GNG, it's WP:V, and as far as I can tell WP:NPOV, not WP:PLAG, not WP:VSCA (Yeah, that's an essay, but linking to each thing individual seems silly even now)...In other words, it's an article, written on a topic that isn't WP:CARES, with sourced information from not unreasonable sources. I could obviously go on, but, really, this seems backwards, should I be going through all the 'reasons for deletion' that you either don't have or haven't mentioned, just to tell you there's been no solid, actual argument made for deleting it? And I'm not just saying 'rawr you need a policy', though it'd be helpful, there just hasn't been an argument that could reasonably be supported by any policy that's, you know, not 'idontlikeit'. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge back to Ashton Kutcher Sure, it's worth having a section on the main article about the Twitter account, but pointless to break out a separate article about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Reasons such as "Down this path lies madness", making "a mockery of building an encyclopedia" etc. and similar "expressions of frustration" are not IDONTLIKEIT, but policy based arguments, based around the fundamental pillar of policy that WP is an Encyclopedia--all our other rules are really just explanations of it. If I were going to say IDONTLIKEIT, I would use it on the main article on the person! (for that matter, the support for a separate article cannot truly be characterised as I LIKE IT, which would mean they like the tweets; rather, the argument amounts to the even more infantile, IWANTIT). I am indeed feeling quite concerned at this attempt to subvert the principle of building an encyclopedia by breaking out mini-articles from sections of an article which happen to sound attractive. Masem's argument a little above for merging expresses the positive way an encyclopedia should handle such material. . I have in the past often supported break out articles on popular culture--even popular culture that I dislike extremely-- but the primary reason for my support has that they've mostly been instances where the material would otherwise have been edited into non-existence. That's not in danger hereAnd I continue to rely on Laurahale's discussion of the secondary sourcing as a demonstration that there is no substantial coverage, only mention as one a a large number of similar phenomena in which every well known person with a twitter following can be included. I am particular impressed by her comment that as a specialist in the general subject she would not want to write a scholarly article on this. DGG ( talk ) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this popped while I was editing and happened to be on the pillar page. The argument itself, that something 'doesn't belong in an encyclopedia', does have the fact this is an encyclopedia as a legitimate basis, but the personal judgement that this particular article somehow fails to be worthy of Wikipedia hasn't been given any real basis. There is some text to go with that pillar worthy looking at, and I think we'd both be stretching ourselves to find a part of it this article actually violates. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought Laura Hale said she could write a paper on this topic but it's not what she is currently working on and there would be lag time. Also, WP:NOTPAPER suggests that the above arguments are not policy based as they misconstrue what the project is by giving the editors own personal definition of encyclopedia, based solely on what the individual editor does not like to separately cover. It appears what the comment above means is the only possible policy based choices are keep or merge since it speaks so highly of a merge rationale and not for deletion of the topic matter.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POPCRAP, WP:FART, totally agree with Drmies. Sad sign of the state of wiki. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not somewhere to hang POPCRAP.PumpkinSky talk 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm... if there were a(n) (auto)biography of Ashton Kutcher and his Twitter account, that book could have been as notable as Full Service (book) and more notable than this article's subject itself. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I do hope, when someone writes, It's A Tweet Life, A and K and the unbearable lightness of being, they credit you for the idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Meeting WP:GNG 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 WP:GNG (a guideline) which others keep citing. IMO these Twitter articles are an embarassment to the whole project. Till I Go Home ^talk 05:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Indiscriminate happens to be that stretch I was talking about earlier. Hopefully, we can work past your shame, to find something actually careless or thoughtless about the article. Honestly, I could list any two pieces of information followed by 'blah blah blah'...it has x protons and it's this dense at this temperature, blah blah blah. Whether that information is actually indiscriminate or not depends on the article and the context in which it's presented. Even though the policy you mention doesn't exhaustively list indiscriminate things, for obvious reasons, comparing this article to excessive statistics (i.e., a series of numbers without context) and calling 'trump by policy' is a bit silly. Consider this example, if the article said 'once, ashton kutcher went to russia', then cited a tweet that said 'duuude, russia', that's pretty indiscriminate. On the other hand, if it mentions he was sent to Russia as part of a delegation focused on social netowrking as a consequence of having the most twitter followers, and that's cited to an external source that reported on such a thing...Well, maybe you still consider that an embarrassment.Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I can say my opinion and you can say yours. So stop going around and commenting on everyone's vote to change their opinion. Btw don't bother replying to this, I won't answer. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • if I may, the purpose of this is to discuss rationales, especially since it was relisted to give those who wish to delete a chance to come forward with policy rationales. You are of course free not to discuss other's policy points. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Well WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that being true or verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think that fits well here as pointed out through the very poor encyclopedic value (IMO) it has, 'x had this many followers' etc. Till I Go Home ^talk 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
          • One must also consider WP:NOTDIARY; "news reporting about celebrities can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary". A lot of the article contains 'x reported this' and 'according to x' and IMO is violating that policy (much more important than a guideline). So yes this is why I consider the article an embarassment and with no encyclopedic value. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Mr. Kutcher's Twitter activities would fit much better in the article devoted to his life and career. I am not seeing any encyclopedic value to having an article about him or any celebrity with a higher-than-normal following on Twitter. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this 100%. Someone might as well create a CNN Breaking News on Twitter article, or perhaps an Ashton Kutcher on MySpace. LOL. Till I Go Home ^talk 12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This view continues to be tough to square with the fact that the pedia already has such articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • ..WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Till I Go Home ^talk 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC
        • Quite. When the argument is that 'this cannot exist,' the response is to show it does exist. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: The owner is notable. But not all he does is notable enough and encyclopedic. Though newspapers must be covering what he tweeted, his "tweets", the subject of the article, are not notable. Would we have a article on some writer who has published 10-12 novels at some local publication and has not been notable at all just because evidence of these publications is available through print advertisements? This article has nothing in it that says about his tweets. It speaks only about owners fame. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What owner?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The Twitter account owner i meant. I wasn't calling you article's owner and certainly not calling you notable. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong long hard deep unambiguous DELETE' I am sure his e-mail address and facebook get a lot of attention but notability is not inherited and twitter accounts like physical addresses simply cannot be contrived as notable except under extraordinary circumstances that do not exist, a litmus would be if an account where the common name of a scandal that was notable and was leaked via twitter and came to be known by the @twitter name used for its account a la watergate, deepthroat, wikileaks, bradley manning, but it simply is not. This article is not educational in any way and fails to meet the needs of wikipedia readers. Merge into a one sentence statement in Kutcher's article at the absolute most.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should still be refraining, but; would not something like being included in a diplomatic delegation to Russia be extraordinary? Obviously they sent the man, and not the account, but that's why this article isn't 'Ashton Kutcher's twitter account'. There seems to be arguments that the account isn't notable, which are probably accurate, but concerning the confluence of Ashton Kutcher and his actions on and concerning Twitter; it's obvious that they could be included in the main article, but to do so without giving it undue weight would require culling most of the article just for the sake of making it shorter. Still, regarding only the most recent relisting, there is undeniably a 'rough consensus', whether it's well-founded or not, and there's no reason the most significant pieces of information couldn't be included in the main article if this one is deleted. It's a matter of discretion at this point. Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is no difference between Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and Ashton Kutcher on Facebook, Ashton Kutcher on MySpace or Ashton Kutcher on Formspring (significance-wise). A line needs to be drawn for encyclopedic content. Wikipedia isn't a spin-off from NOW Magazine. As WP:WHIM states, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I can't think of how somebody's activity on Twitter is considered suitable on Wikipedia. Till I Go Home ^talk 10:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Therein lies the discretion, since I can easily think of how it's considered suitable. While the article isn't anything like the examples listed under that policy, the policy also states it isn't exhaustive; so whether or not the article is, in fact, indiscriminate (or diary-like), is subject to interpretation of the article itself. I see how this article could be a useful collection of information for someone who, say, heard about the russia thing and googled 'ashton kutcher twitter russia' to find out if it were true/why. (I know I'm harping on that particular instance a bit, but it was actually interesting to learn on my part). Or, apparently, for writing a paper, though it hasn't been written. Collecting dispersed information in such a way seems very encyclopedic to me, otherwise why not let Google do our job for every other article. However, this is merely the way I see the article. Even if I disagree, there is no 'see, this is discriminate' test or policy I can apply. So, for as long as your argument for deletion is based on that particular metric, there's no significant argument I'm making against that. Reasonable enough? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "There is no difference . . ." It appears there is and it lies in the third party coverage of those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I did say significance-wise, not coverage-wise. As in, encyclopedic value. Till I Go Home ^talk 01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • This Russian event did not happen just because of his twitter account. Isnt it? It happened because a famous film-star was using twitter. This event is also not about the account. Its about Kutcher. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
        • That would be the distinction between 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' and 'Ashton Kutcher's Twitter Account', I should hope. Mind you, I doubt any old celebrity would have done, he did have more followers than anyone else at that point, and apparently some amount of tech savvy to go with it...or so it is reported. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually Googled to check the different results you get for Ashton Kutcher on Facebook and Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. It is pretty obvious that while there is fleeting and mostly incidental coverage of his activities on Facebook, his activities are Twitter have been the subject of a substantially greater degree of attention. The comparison is not valid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing, because I did say 'significance-wise', not 'coverage-wise'. Till I Go Home ^talk 01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I admit my first instinct upon seeing "x celebrity on Twitter" is to push for a merge or delete, but this appears to be an exceptional case where a celebrity's activity on a social networking site has racked up considerable in-depth press coverage that goes beyond "x tweeted" as he has marked several milestones for the social networking site including one that involved a competition to beat out a major news source. The pop-hate is a bit misguided as popular culture is still a part of culture whether you like it or not. If something is a notable aspect of pop culture then it makes sense to have an encyclopedic article about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Articles are supposed to be about topics of lasting significance. We are not People Magazine. LadyofShalott 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that the Los Angeles Times, CNN, The Huffington Post, Forbes and The New York Times were like People Magazine. Go figure. Statυs (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Per above. TBrandley 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not enough notable content to justify fork from main article on Ashton. See what Justin Beiber on Twitter looks like in comparison. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that other article suggest this one would develop? Among other things, Kutcher has authored/published on Twitter use. See, [3]Has Bieber?Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ahem, that's Bieber for Justin Bieber and Justin Bieber on Twitter, unless you used typo as some sarcasm. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• I diagree Sven. See this article as a sampling of why I actually think the case is stronger for keeping this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR. Idiotic. Puerile. What next - Farts of the rich and famous? Half-eaten sandwiches of people featured in the tabloids? Any old bollocks we can source that refers to some bloke off the telly? If people want to create meaningless junk like this they should found their own website: Sowhatopedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is the most meaningless and ignorant comment I have ever seen in my entire life. Statυs (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'article' isn't about anything remotely encyclopaedic, end of story. Twitter is a website. Websites aren't new. Ashton Kutcher isn't notable for posting stuff on websites. 'Celebrities' posting stuff on websites isn't new. People claiming that something somebody they've heard of doing something they've heard of is 'notable' isn't new. Sadly, the inability of people to distinguish between temporary 'noticeability' and anything any of us will give a damn about in two years time isn't new either. If people want to find out about 'Ashton Kutcher on Twitter' they can read his Twitter postings - or the gutter press. This 'article' is vacuous bollocks, and not worth the effort involved in explaining why to people who can't tell the difference between hype and significance, or between 'ignorance' and an unwillingness to waste time arguing with airheads... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have from my first months here been a supporter of very full coverage of popular culture. I urge those who think so also, to realize that this is best done by not being ridiculous. Unlike the corresponding article on Bieiber, where almost all of of the contents is totally worthless FANSITE fodder that belongs nowhere except where it is found already, on his own twitter account, some of this material is reasonably relevant to the article on Kutcher. It will only be harmed by pulling it into a separate article. Trying to make too many articles ofn a favorite subject shows the lack of a reasonable and encyclopedic approach to it. Andy's comments just above are probably unfairly negative--but the existence of articles like this is what encourages such an attitude towards it. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I was bouncing back and forth, and reluctant to note my view given how people respond to those in this camp, but DGG's point makes the most sense. It's not about liking or hating the articles, but whether or not the article provides encyclopedic value on its own merits. I'm not seeing it with this one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong delete this is an encyclopedia; we do not include gossips or any pop bs.--GoP_T^C_{N 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)}