Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter suspensions

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 keep. It is clearly a "keep". Further discussions related to renaming or content can be taken to the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter suspensions[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This list of accounts suspended from Twitter isn't notable (and this does not convince me). Thousands upon thousands of accounts have been banned on Twitter, and many tiny incidents have generated a little bit of buzz, mostly routine coverage. Some of the suspensions on this list might belong at Shadowbanning. wumbolo ^^^ 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Twitter is unusual due to its high-profile in culture (Trump, George Zimmerman, etc). It's not like getting banned from YouTube or Wikipedia. The list is of notable cases, not every case. At least, the notable cases randomly added. -- GreenC 19:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - If the rules were being more aggressively followed - in the sense that only blue-linked individuals (etc) who had a reliable source about their banning then I can fully see this is being both a workable and a not unreasonable list. I do however think the list name is a little confusing as-is. "High-profile Twitter suspensions" would make more sense, as well as some needed clean-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be much better. And I would still like to be a bit more convinced of the list's notability. wumbolo ^^^ 20:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As touched on on the talk page, if you limit scope to notable individuals only, you exclude high profile purges on e.g. Russian bots etc Deku-shrub (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub: Yes, sorry I should have clarified that that statement referred to individuals (I saw the alt-right mention - which clearly has lots of coverage, but would be an odd distinct article) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "rule"? -- GreenC 23:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of continuing news coverage regarding Twitter’s policies especially Alex Jones’s permanent suspension from Twitter makes this article extremely relevant and valuable.The lorax (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a valid topic with Twitter actions to suspend accounts (or not) being frequently covered. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that the list should be limited to blue-linked entries, but after reading this entry, I reconsidered:

@nemuismywife | Japanese man | August 2017 | Uses new account | Account permanently suspended for making death threat against a mosquito. The man started a new account.[52][53]

That's too funny to remove :). K.e.coffman (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.