Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. People seem fairly divided between keep, delete, and some variant on rename/merge. There's certainly no consensus to delete; I would suggest participants reframe the conversation by having a dedicated conversation on whether merging would be an appropriate outcome. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twitter users and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians

[edit]
Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Twitter users (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)

Not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. More like a directory. And worst of all, not referenced with sources to show why there should be a list of Twitter users in an encyclopedia article. There are so many Twitter users out there that conceivably, such a list, even if it is limited to those who have Wikipedia articles, could reach thousands, possibly millions. If just a few famous people are notable for using Twitter, this could be written about in the main Twitter article. Dew Kane (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract the "possibly millions" statement. Non-notable members of a list can be removed with normal editing. See below. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • The basic problem here, that has generated the overwhelming majority of the back-and-forth above, is the totally daft idea of having this as a list article at all, for which list inclusion criteria have to be then invented. There's a proper prose article here, waiting to get out. It was obscured by the daft choice of using a table. You can see it at Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, which I have included under the umbrella of this AFD discussion. It's also an ideal merger target for articles like Rihanna on Twitter (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the individual who had the daft idea to turn a bulleted list into table, I quite like your article (in particular the lead, which was something I had intended to add to this one), however I would advise against the addition of Rihanna (as noted in that Afd). --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (maybe small merge) to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. At this point, the article seems unlikely to grow beyond the few people (celebrities and politicians) who have articles about their use of Twitter...so it seems logical to have the info about their use of Twitter in an article about the use of Twitter by celebs and politicians. We certainly don't need both articles; they are pretty redundant to each other. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As it stands, the name implies that it's a list of every Twitter user ever and that's just silly. But if we rename it then the name becomes similar to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and the two will basically have the same function. So, merge. CarniCat (meow) 05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Nolelover/CarniCat. (Vote changed from a delete, struck through above.) --BDD (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Change my view. Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Now what the hell is this? We discuss deletion of this list. After this has started, many other "twitter of XYZ" go for AfD. Then someone starts a completely new article which is nothing but same stuff without table and same stuff from individual articles. Why do you wanna keep writing same and same on so many articles? This all my-twitter-account-is-awesome is also present on individual biographies. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a reasonable question. If you look at the first edit of Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, it is obvious it was a copy/paste of this article. It even included the AFD tag, which is worrisome. It would have been better if Uncle G has just worked on this article instead of copy/pasting it to create his own version of the same thing. If anything, that article is a clone of this article, and should be merged into THIS one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor admin who tries to close this AfD. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a bit dimwitted on two counts.

        First: If you look at the first edit, it's fairly obvious that it's copied and pasted from the places that the edit summary says it was copied and pasted from. Ironically, those are the very places that list of Twitter users was copied from, except that proper hyperlinkage, to conform with our copyright licence, wasn't given in the edit summary by the editor who did it there.

        Second: It's only "worrisome" if one is lazy. Everyone else will have read the explanation only a few bullet points above that it's included under the umbrella of this discussion, to stand and fall with it. After all, as I pointed out, it's the prose article that was in there waiting to get out.

        It's not even hard to work out why the separation, with a little applied thought. First: The initial edit summary is correct, whereas it isn't in list of Twitter users. Second: Kelapstick declared that xe was going to make further changes, and it was clear that those changes involved keeping the table and cutting out the prose. I went instead with keeping the prose, to provide a centralized merger target, and losing the table. I even corrected several errors in the citations along the way. ☺

        Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Please stay WP:CIVIL. There is no reason to be calling people "dimwitted" or "lazy". Second, either I've misunderstood what you wrote or your criticism of another editor's failure "to conform with our copyright license" when copy-pasting material from one Wikipedia page to another is misplaced. All material uploaded to Wikipedia is available under the same license. Dricherby (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's a third choice: You haven't misunderstood the criticism, it's not mis-placed, and what was done was indeed not correct. There's a hyperlink to the page that explains what's necessary per the copyright licence, above, already given. Follow that hyperlink and read it. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G, it really doesn't require that I'm lazy or dimwitted to come to my conclusion. Adding an article this late in the game for what seems is to intentionally put it at AFD isn't really such a good idea since most of the votes were already in. I would have just boldly changed the first article and moved or proposed a move instead of creating a second article. The format is better on your article, I agree with that, but the process of how we got here is a bit unnecessarily sloppy. I guess I don't see the point of doing it this way, unless it is to make some point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does require a bit of laziness to not read a very clear explanation of what's going on only a few bullet points above where you wonder what's going on. And it is dimwitted to see an edit summary outright saying where things are copied from and then proceed to claim that they were copied from somewhere else. (Well, it's either dimwittedness or malice, an outright insult that the edit summary was dishonest. I didn't attribute it to malice.)

            I've already explained two very good reasons why it was done this way. If you've never encountered situations where we have multiple alternate drafts of an article going in divergent directions, with a choice to have one, the other, or indeed neither of them, then you've not experienced everything at Wikipedia. It's not an unusual practice. I've done it several times at AFD, and it happens fairly regularly in article talk page discussion. The important thing to remember at AFD is not to attempt to preëmpt or to bypass the deletion discussion, which is why I've always included the alternative under the umbrella of the AFD discussion of the original, just as I did in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • No, it's not an unusual practice butt adding the other article to the AfD after the vast majority of !votes have been cast certainly is. There's an entire section of commenters who have not seen the new article at all; do their !votes just get disregarded? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but are you trying to get this to no-consensus? This thing is so convoluted... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • This isn't a election. Votes are not "cast". This is a discussion, and good practice here is, as elsewhere in Wikipedia, to watchlist a discussion that one has participated in or simply revisit it regularly. It is, after all, a seven day long discussion. (I added the alternative a mere 48 hours into it. It wasn't even a last-minute addition from patrolling the tail end of AFD.) AFD is not, and is never meant to be, a process where a handful of drive-by voters comment within the first few hours, and then nothing happens for six and a half days; and if one doesn't participate in a discussion, rather than touch it once and nevermore, one risks missing out.

                You are welcome, if you think that it is needed, to go to the user talk pages of any of the editors who haven't yet altered their opinions and ask them simply to revisit the discussion, if you want to. That's normal AFD practice, too. But closing administrators know to take into account changes that happen during the discussion and to read earlier comments, by any people who don't watchlist and who don't pay attention to subsequent discussion, in light of that. It's not as though that's unusual, either, sad to say.

                Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                  • Following this: I do not like what you did and have ZERO idea what to do regarding my own "vote" because this is very convoluted. I might favour a redirect from one to the other but having done that at the 11th hour, I wouldn't even begin to know how to express an opinion to say that. The addition of a second article so late just feels like a complete out of process move. Oppose: Out of process addition of second article into AfD. Is that what you correctly want me to do? Does that now count as a second "vote"?--LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You unnecessarily read too much between the lines Uncle G. Rudely questioning my intelligence doesn't make your assumptions correct nor does it diminish the validity of my concerns. The whole way this was done is indeed "worrisome", and as others have pointed out, confusing the issue. And I don't recall questioning your faith, only your choices. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, only you thought it was worrisome. Others saw the very clear explanation, considered, and changed their minds on the issue at hand, without any expressions of worry, and without even being confused by Dr. Blofeld messing around removing an AFD notice. ☺ There is, and was, nothing worrisome here, and the idea that you're confused by something as simple as a suggested alternative being put forward in a discussion is ludicrous. No-one questioned your intelligence, but I told you that you're being a bit dimwitted because you are being a bit dimwitted. This is straightforward and easy to figure out, without being silly and coming over all worried by something very simple whose explanation was right in front of you. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, I find this rather amusing. As I look up at the concerns of others being expressed, I'm reminded of the expression "When you point a finger at someone, three more are pointing back at you", for some odd reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my mind, the issue is scope. "List of Twitter users" is a heckuva lot different than "Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians", and boundaries are better expressed with the defining "Use of...by..." Yes, I saw the first edit (heck, a redirect alone would work without a merge), but I think this topic is better expressed in prose form over a table with a name that practically invites every two-bit comedian to add themselves. Now, Animesh, I agree with you that these articles are not the best (to put it diplomatically) and are getting spread all over the place, but if we can create a clear central location for all the relevant information, maybe the content won't need its own articles and/or sections in the respective bios. Does that make sense? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Not an encyclopedic topic, nor that noteworthy of a trait, with it reaching such high levels of use. Not opposed to more specific article maybe, but as is, seems more appropriate for a category or something... Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reading over this, clearly it's not worth having an article. Not against a merge, though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not worthy of having it's own article, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga alone should not even have their own articles. JayJayTalk to me 23:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - calls for deletion seem to stem from intellectual snobbery. —Pengo 05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Twitter_users&oldid=1221282350"