Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

1666:

abstract is "Ulanoff L. Facebook Challenges Twitter to Celebrity Deathmatch!. PC Magazine . 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 . 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. :) )--

5030:

not just being the first to have a million followers, but turning it into both a public event and a philanthropic platform seem, well, significant, if nothing else. In regards to the value of the article, understanding that we've put aside policy-based considerations for a moment, I can easily see someone interested in specifically the subject of him on Twitter, while not, to use Andy's terms, giving any damns at all about his filmography. Whether the best way to facilitate giving that person the information they want is a separate article or a subsection goes into a discussion of link navigation and search engines and the like, and is probably a discussion worth having on the article's talk-page in the future. Similarly, the article's quality is something for the editing process, and although I wouldn't exactly call it poor now, no doubt it could be improved. What I am confident about, looking at value and quality, is that deleting the article doesn't benefit much of anything.

2224:. 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 Knowledge reliable sources (which makes it Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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 2558:, "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. 2914:

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

5011:...All right, I'll rephrase on the 1,000-article part: primary events directly about this topic, such as statistics and messages, have been retold by non-primary sources. Retelling of all Twitter activities might count as one; impact by account might count as another. I got two. Review on account is the third. Unfortunately, a review on one or multiple postings... are not worthy of inclusion. For instance, why including a negative or positive opinion about Kutcher's competition with CNN to battle malaria? Should we include that? A book, which may inspire reviews, or a movie about Twitter and Ashton can tell a better narrative than this article. -- 2755:

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

1646:. 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 3695:

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...

1876:-- 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. -- 1952:. 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? -- 3259:

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.

849:, 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. -- 1737:--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 3100:: 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. §§ 2703:, 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'. 593:

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. --

1690:

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. --

3781:

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.

1463:, 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. -- 31: 4863:

explicitly 'we find the subject of this article we wrote notable per Knowledge guidelines'. We find subjects notable based on the existence of independent sources that make note of them. In general, there are a number of verifiable things about this particular guy's use of Twitter that are and have been treated as distinct from that of a variety of other such individuals. I can mention a couple again if you like.

2619:. 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 2982:; "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. 2750:

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

2162:

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.

3912:. If anything, the current article may suffer from having a narrow focus on his account rather than dealing more generally with Kutcher's involvement with Twitter. Anyone looking into the history of Twitter would be ill-served if they did not pay a lot of attention to Kutcher's activity. If we could only keep one of these x celebrity account on Twitter articles, it would have to be this one.-- 3153: 4256:, and so on. Kutcher's Twitter account? Well, I see some assertion of notability from this topic. Unfortunately, notability of this account is becoming irrelevant, as too much recentism is involved, criticism or praise on account (or Ashton's activities with Twitter) is not yet found or added, and no books or academic journals about primarily the topic itself are made. Even 3736: 4551:: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." Account is the publisher's work, and account must inspire scolarly analysis and critical reviews. Get it? -- 3179:

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.

2350:

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

4640:...Since these sources are reliable, can we put reliability of sources and notability of topic aside, so we must discuss article's current state of inclusion and exclusion, please? I guess this article has reliable sources, but I'm not sure if verified information is worth repeating in this article, especially since no primary analysis is published yet. -- 4985:

considers ALL news from EVERY paper, tv station etc, as a SINGLE SOURCE, I'm afraid you won't get much traction, AND you'll invalidate about 100,000 current articles which quote only news sources. Notability may not have "actual criteria", but the GNG explains that Significant Coverage (which I've shown) SHOWS Notability. Even aside from that, this

105:), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In the discussions below, there are many examples of other potential topics that receive a lot of coverage in reliable sources, but otherwise would not be suitable for an article as they would violate 4417:

and Ashton Kutcher, which is already said in Ashton Kutcher. I'm not sure if mentioning Kutcher's first Twitter intro to Bieber is worth valuable or signifying, but... That's all I can say, as there aren't any other sources that explain impact on Bieber by this topic itself. You don't see "(person) on instant messaging" because specific (

3388:

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.--

4104:

does, and now we have a notion that "celebrity using social media technology" is somehow noteworthy of our time. It isn't. The media has also taken note of (examiner.com/article/publishing-the-impulsive-imp-a-q-a-with-anne-rice-and-her-sister-tamara) Anne Rice's discourse with fans via facebook, but this doesn't justify

2114:, 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. -- 85:, owing to the vast quantity of sources available on the subject. That argument is countered to some degree by those claiming that the vast majority of the sources are not primarily about the specific topic of Kutcher's use of Twitter, but otherwise I believe the consensus is that the topic most likely passes 2078:, 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 3826:. 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. 1156:" 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. -- 5029:

There's now four distinct people in this little chain, so let's not attribute anything one person said to another. As to George, my personal favorite is still his diplomatic mission to Russia concerning social networking, that certain doesn't work for any random celeb on any random website. Moreover,

4984:

it should be here, or that its too trivial, or any other excuse. Hey, surprise! The news talks about trivial things. If they do it enough, we get an article! I completely disagree with your analysis, as news sources are our normal source of info. If you're suggesting a massive policy change that

4397:

And you would replace notability with what, how some people may feel today? But leaving aside notability, what we can look to is whether a publisher's communications and his means of doing so can form the basis for an encyclopedia article. Knowledge and every other encyclopedia has already answered

4374:

applies here, as well. There is no guarantee that notability of this topic benefits or leads to a valuable stand-alone article. This topic could be notable, but... look at this article. It talks primary stuff that has been retold in non-primary sources, like a fictional recap. Can we leave notability

4103:

is usually applied to negative "Controversy regarding X..." type articles, but it can also be taken in the other direction; too much weight given to something positive, or in this case, the trivial and the banal. All this is is a byproduct of tabloid media who obsess over everything that a celebrity

3902:

Honestly, instead of paying attention to the "OMG, WTF is with this POPCRAP!?" arguments people should actually be looking not only at this article but beyond to see the unique impact Kutcher has had with regards to his activities on Twitter. Here are some non-popcrap reasons for keeping the article:

3387:

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

2913:

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

2775:

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

1689:

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

1083:

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

1004:

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

592:

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

539:

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

3780:

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

3709:

Aha, Well, I suppose there's no pointing out the ill-tempered behavior of a self-labeled grump. Anyways, it may be worth pointing out to anyone looking over the discussion that, whether you or I or anyone will or will not give any damns in two years, that notability is not temporary when it comes to

2544:

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

2317:

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

1665:

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

1596:

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

1432:

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

802:

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 Knowledge 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

459:

These "X on twitter" articles have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and keeping any of them devalues the whole Knowledge 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

4843:

on websites? Where are the sources that say this individuals postings are notable? What are they notable for? How do they differ from the postings of anyone else? Twitter, as a social/technological phenomenon is clearly notable, but why are the postings of this particular 'celebrity' of any lasting

4416:

I'm not replacing notability; I'm leaving notability aside, as you were doing. To put this another way, this article talks growing statistics, which... I find... valuable probably... but insufficient amount of value. Moreover, it discusses the events that indirectly caused more attention on Twitter

3694:

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

3348:

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

3327:

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

2754:

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

2749:

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

2649:

So, I ended up running myself all around Knowledge 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

2322:

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.

2211:

Knowledge's standards for keeping an article does not require an academic article that would be accepted by a first-rate journal. Knowledge'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

2182:

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 Knowledge's. Outlets that popularize a new

1843:

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

3801:

If personal editing history is important, I have no editing history to speak of with respect to popular culture; it doesn't particularly interest me. What does interest me is that it is fairly treated like any other subject, based on the application of the same standards we apply to any subject.

3178:

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

2598:

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

2228:

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

1650:

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

4777:

Still I wonder: why do you think this article has some value that's repeated in Kutcher article? Did he create any other accounts that's newsworthy or something else, like chatting online (AOL, remember?), posting videos on YouTube, and any other? As I said before, maybe this article cannot limit

4488:

reliable sources is a retelling of real-life events (i.e. a recap), as fiction has been retold by non-primary sources. Leaving sources aside, like fiction, this article should not be about only plot and background. There is no source yet about his creating an account and/or review of his account.

4350:

We are at a deletion discussion where the policies are GNG, WEB and the other notability guidelines, yet when hundreds of reliable sources from respected outlets (discussing multiple facets of this topic) and books that actually use the topic as something the reader will readily grasp information

3198:

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

2794:

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

2379:

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

2349:

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

2161:

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

3258:

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

691:

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

4862:

I'm curious where that 'always' Knowledge policy came from, it's not the trend I've read in them so far. Anyways, assuming he isn't in fact famous for it, which I can't easily say, that's fine, he need only be significant. Incidentally, no one (few poeple?) write sources about a subject and say

3193:

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

506:

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

4803:

While I am not an AK fan, this article easily meets the GNG. For those of you who are arguing that "you could just as easily have CelebX on Facebook (etc)" articles, well, yes you could. Someone may still make them, and then we can have this exact same discussion again! My vote will become

1852:

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

4762:

No matter how many times you comment George, your subjective belief is that "Ashton Kutcher is notable for one crappy show whose syndication broadcasting will die down, one lousy movie about a missing car, one relationship with Demi Moore." Luckily wikipedia was not built on such subjective

4327:

These books neither improve quality of this article nor prove significant coverage on this topic. I added "mainly" to clarify. As I said, a book primarily about Ashton Kutcher's Twitter activities will have more value than a book's subject itself, and... it's not as if this conversation were

2403:

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. --

4375:

out of this between us? After all talk about notability, I realize that any amount of notability does not equal to a valuable article. This article has no indication of value (notable or not), especially since this topic hasn't yet inspired reaction, like "Suicide(s) of..." and stuff. Even

761:

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

1732:

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

626:

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

4493:

have background and effects, but a person's profile is too low to have a separate "Tyler Clementi" article (well, it was separate but became "Suicide of..."). There was so much balance on background, court case, and reactions from directly and indirectly involved and uninvolved.

4195:- The article is not about Kutcher's signifcant tweets. That information can/should be in the Biography article, and mainly is. This article is about the media coverage of Kutcher's tweets, and it is using that same media coverage to source itself. That makes the media coverage 4778:

itself to only Twitter account, especially if anybody doesn't publish analysis and thought elsewhere, like paper. Stats... well, not as much as general background about creation of his account... I don't know, but stats are not sufficiently valuable, even if valuable, to me. --

4953:

and tried to explain that 1,000 news sources could count as one source, no matter what company or agency. If you have your own beliefs, then you may be right. Nevertheless, notability has no actual criteria; Knowledge made and change rules about criteria of notability. Also,

4514:, but critical reception of Sam and Diane is not that mergeable to either of them. Account of the publisher was exploited for philantrophy that resulted growth of followers, but philantrophy and comment controversy are more valuable than growing stats and already told in 2376:. 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. 3989: 4312: 4309: 1433:

his Twitter account and have follow up stories on it, giving Knowledge plenty of material for the spinout article. Knowledge:Summary style reqires enough text in the given Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence subtopic to merit its own article, so you might want to expand

3756:

where page after page after page after page after page after page (wait, not too much reiteration, I sense a sudden slump in twit-readership) after page of reasoning has failed, using approachable hopefully memorable language to explain policy is f***ing brilliant.

1038:

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.

3267:

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?

2522:

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

1326:

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.

3645: 1071:; 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: 2500:

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.

1294:

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

3750: 3633: 2398:

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

1597:

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?

2964:

states that being true or verifiable does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Knowledge. I think that fits well here as pointed out through the very poor encyclopedic value (IMO) it has, 'x had this many followers' etc.

474:

Loathing for the subject, and its implications for the fate of Knowledge and humanity generally. But undoubtedly notable. Lots of verifiable facts to prove general fame and popularity, let alone notability, plus "They <Kutcher and GF:

3008:

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.

807:

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.

2945:

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.

3641: 2664:

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"?

1539:) 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 ( 4611:

article. Look, there's nothing else you can find that's worth including or that's not already explained, okay? I checked the sources (1 to 11), and that's all I found. The upcoming Twitter-based sitcom... what happened to it?

4131:

its prevalence among Knowledge editors or the general public." So while undue is not an article inclusion criteria, it similarly advises NOT following editor's personal approval or disapproval of what RS choose to cover per

2297:

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

223: 4532:

This is not fiction. This is communications, media, business, marketing, philanthropy, sociology, advertising -- all these non-fiction angles and more are covered in detail in the sources over a sustained period of years.

2212:

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

3244:

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 Knowledge.

4429:

yet.... Wait a minute; is Twitter also instant messaging? Is blog another way of instant messaging? If Facebook is instant message, then maybe we can add Facebook and other stuff here, so this title would be renamed to

3987:

Although I didn't want to comment on this AfD, I think I should. The article is not independently notable of Ashton Kutcher. By the same rationale for the existence of this article I could find some sources from google

1344:

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?

1092:" 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). -- 1515:

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.

5060:

I assume you mean as opposed to a merge? Wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened, but it risks turning interesting information into a factoid without context. Although maybe you're asking me something else?

4207:. We are not a newspaper, and not a news aggregator. We would need RS covering the coverage to have this type of meta-article meet our policies, we don't have those sources and I have been unable to find them. -- 4838:

have to justify it - and simply claiming without further evidence that 'it meets a policy requirement' isn't justification at all. Why should an online encyclopaedia have an article about the postings of someone

1680:

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

1183:: 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.-- 2553:

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

4108:

in the slightest. Tweeting in itself is not a notable, unique, or extraordinary activity. It warrants a line or two in his bio, but the stuff about CNN challenges and what he says about Penn St. is trivial.

437:. 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 2776:

Knowledge 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.

2599:

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). --

2229:

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. --

3313:

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. §§

4450:

This publishers message and means is covered by the reliable sources extensively. Someone else? Some other means? -- that article, who knows? Information can always be added to improve any article.

2400: 4260:, a trashy book about Hollywood stars from the past, has some hints of notability that will not go away, and its article has content that demonstrates history of book and reaction toward book. The 1801: 4927:

these postings are notable - also not required - the fact that these twits appeared in reliable third-party sources (see above) indicates notability, and you should know this if you read the GNG.

4009:

You know, it almost certainly wouldn't be the same rationale; unless you can honestly say you see some notable landmarks in the development of shoes as a social concept in those search resuults.

1789: 1084:

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.

2549:, 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 2338:

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

4966:" aside to weigh in on article content itself by value and quality. Look at the article and another, and tell me if the topic itself is worth explaining further and keeping a fork article. -- 4654:

The wider world has this article topic, in its communications, media, business, marketing, philanthropy, sociology, advertising, etc. aspects, and the project seeks to serve the wider world.

4565:

They "should" and they are "expanded" because they exist -- an example in an educational marketing text or an article in the Washington Post business section is not going to be just a recap.

4900: 2524: 4426: 258: 3397: 2062: 1005:

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

3018: 2431:

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

1795: 1319: 666:. 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. -- 4848:

this is anything other than random fancruft, or hype about another internet fad, there is nothing to support anything more than a passing mention in the bio of the individual concerned.

3620: 1364:

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."

611:

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

3337: 3291: 2804: 3208: 3109: 3082: 2567: 3188: 2535: 2451: 2013: 354: 4872: 3719: 3570: 3549: 3431: 1260: 3661: 3166: 3141: 2741: 1787:, 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 1373: 1354: 217: 2513: 2491: 2363: 2048: 2035: 466: 5053: 4894: 4018: 2834: 2274: 2096: 549: 524: 5070: 5039: 4663: 4649: 4635: 4621: 4602: 4588: 4574: 4560: 4542: 4459: 4443: 4411: 4392: 4364: 4343: 4322: 4036: 3511: 3375: 3358: 2872: 2590: 1456: 393: 319: 3921: 3039: 2220:

notability of this topic. In a sense, this is a new type of article for Knowledge. We have articles on newspapers, magazines, and other media communication outlets such as the

1961: 911: 573: 489: 4234: 3637: 3598: 3230: 3024: 2932:

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.

2712: 2674: 2659: 2216:, 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 1862: 1832: 780:

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

3873: 2644: 2413: 2393: 2153: 1234: 1211: 1030: 675: 4857: 3308: 3277: 2940: 2927: 2611: 2246: 2131: 1941: 1561:

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.

1472: 1336: 1192: 1125: 1101: 1062: 944: 178: 81:. Simple vote counting puts delete votes slightly ahead of keep votes (roughly 60/40). An analysis of the arguments shows that most Keep voters argue that the topic passes 4157:– Unworthy of its own article. This article is about NOTHING and only the necessary information about his Twitter account should be condensed and put onto a new section on 4145: 3487: 3322: 3253: 3053: 2973: 2955: 2908: 2852: 2785: 1885: 967: 701:

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

450: 417: 3814: 3792: 3704: 3685: 3222: 2770: 2200: 1775: 1584: 1289: 1165: 1143: 718: 640: 5020: 5006: 4975: 4944: 4825: 4787: 4772: 4749: 4723: 1754: 1651:

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.--

4702: 4225:

This article is about the account or outlet, and is using third party reliable sources that cover the account. Isn't that how almost all Knowledge articles are written?

3954: 3226: 3028: 1809:

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

1724: 858: 833: 793: 775: 736: 602: 587: 511:, 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 4185: 1926: 1902: 803:

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

3992: 3894: 3522: 2650:

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...

2286:

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.

2040:

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.

1675: 1446: 974: 4087: 4073: 3194:

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

2238: 1699: 4714:. Yes, the subject is faintly ridiculous, but its notable. The subjective opinion of random editors unsupported by actual facts is a weak rationale for deletion.-- 4055: 4004: 3979: 3843: 2173: 1991: 1660: 1525: 1308: 272: 4252:. Seriously, Ashton Kutcher is notable for one crappy show whose syndication broadcasting will die down, one lousy movie about a missing car, one relationship with 1552: 607:

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,

4216: 1845: 1811: 4518:

article. Account, on the other hand, requires such reaction about his accounts themselves. No analyst has covered on his article mainly yet, so we must wait... --

4165: 4355:. Anyone who publishes educational books like those linked to, only uses such well known examples, because they indeed evoke a critical viewpoint of the topic. 4105: 2990: 1917:? 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? -- 705:

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.

502:

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

40: 4527: 4299: 4118: 1608: 1500: 1409: 2918:

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.

3803: 3199:

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.

1957: 1922: 1858: 1695: 1671: 1656: 1139: 829: 771: 714: 671: 636: 598: 569: 109:. In any case, I would be ok with restoring the article for the purpose of merging some of its material to other articles, upon request on my talk page. 2632: 1824: 183: 4923:, but presumably its easier to grump about it here. You mentioned "lasting significance" - there is no such requirement, sorry. You want sources that 1379: 4607:

These sources either already explain information in Wiki-articles or do not have information that have worthy of inclusion, unless they are meant for

428:"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. 3906: 3881:: The article simply has no encyclopaedic merit. Possibly the claim that the account was the first to have a million followers could be included in 2699:(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 1953: 1918: 1854: 1691: 1667: 1652: 1135: 825: 767: 710: 667: 632: 594: 565: 4027:

is not "independently notable" of Abraham Lincoln. As Tom Morris discussed when relisting, this shows fundamental misapplication of notability.

2790:

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,

1805:, 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 888:

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.

953: 4885:

has been cited too many times. There is no MOS guideline about internet-related articles right now, so... I would like your examples, please? --

288:

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

3649: 2628: 1979: 1934: 1717: 608: 363: 151: 146: 4402:. In just the 11 citations already cited here throughout the above discussion, such an article can be written. Add to that hundreds more. 1131: 809: 4986: 4242: 2620: 155: 2435:-like manner. You can basically find source mentions of any topic, but just having footnotes doesn't mean that a topic is notable -- they 1853:

deletion I fully supported. Nothing noteworthy about her usage and nothing that demonstrated "some culturally significant phenomenon".) --

2730:

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.

2578: 687:

I would think that the information that provides "value in that they explain how social media and current culture work" should be in the

120: 4834:" this article easily meets the GNG". Please explain why. This isn't a vote. It has always been Knowledge policy that those who wish to 238: 138: 2461: 1741:, 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 205: 4989:

article shows the significance of AK's Twitter account in big business, investment, and startups. Clearly notable, by any standard.

4908: 3559: 2892:. 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 1982:. Any description and important examples of how Twitter works as a marketing and social tool belongs in the article about Twitter. -- 3558:

Wouldn't that other article suggest this one would develop? Among other things, Kutcher has authored/published on Twitter use. See,

1199: 3866: 2309:

synthesising published material to advance a position. If it is, it should surely be discernible what the position it is advancing

2820:, totally agree with Drmies. Sad sign of the state of wiki. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not somewhere to hang POPCRAP. 1318:. Down this path lies madness. The President of the USA is regularly covered by newspapers, but does that mean we should have a 501:

Please don't take this as argumentative or confrontational as it's not meant to be. But the sentence "They <Kutcher and GF: -->

4383:

apply to what the article says right now and to how every argument can be neither right nor wrong but beneficial to consensus. --

2022:

I don't think anybody is questioning Twitters role in contemporary society, but that role is best described in the article about

1948:

Do you think the information on Kutcher would fit there? It would seem, unless scaled back to one or two sentences, it would be

348: 2795:

policy based choices are keep or merge since it speaks so highly of a merge rationale and not for deletion of the topic matter.

4626:

Yes, I know. The multiple reliable sources thought differently about this topic and that's what we base article inclusion on.

1819:

and there has to be an intelligent way to fork this, instead of creating numerous articles about case by case by case. Again,

2839:

Hmm... if there were a(n) (auto)biography of Ashton Kutcher and his Twitter account, that book could have been as notable as

2457: 1075:

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

1036: 781: 4127:

From wp:undue, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources,

1639: 1011:

I figured that the notability of this has gained due to some pedophilia case in football and the notable celebrity himself.

996:" at the start. Therefore, voting would have been avoided or lessened, even if numerous "keeps" would make this discussion 441:

notability". Who puts "keep" is claiming, more or less, "everything cited on a newspaper is relevant to an encyclopedia".--

199: 254:

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

2343: 3124: 2474: 376: 302: 160: 757:

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,

631:, offer valid case studies. This is why they are of academic interest, despite the claims you're making otherwise. -- 195: 5144: 4334:

here. Back on the sources, the books you listed do not have critical viewpoint on Kutcher and his Twittering ways. --

3837: 328: 125: 4290:

about Kutcher's Twitter, then the book must have reviews, background about the book itself, and the book's plot. --

3128: 2478: 380: 306: 430:

For example, such an article may violate what Knowledge is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Knowledge

172: 3917: 3616: 3507: 3393: 3354: 2627:); it seems, rather, an excuse to collect a bunch of facts and numbers to create a DYK/GA, riding on the wave of 1643: 1088:

Challenging CNN for bed sheets that reduce risks of malaria helps this topic achieve it. Fortunately, it passes "

245: 17: 4980:

ummm, no, we cannot. I base my votes on wikipedia's inclusion policies and back those votes up, not on whether

2679:

We need policy to justify -not- deleting the article now? Well then, let's start from the beginning. It passes

2339: 932: 924: 798:

You said it doesn't have academic interest, based on criteria I do not understand. The article clearly passes

142: 3604: 3282:"There is no difference . . ." It appears there is and it lies in the third party coverage of those things. 3014: 2900:(a guideline) which others keep citing. IMO these Twitter articles are an embarassment to the whole project. 1716:. Frankly, all of these Celebrity X on Twitter articles are embarrassing and they all need to be merged into 1014: 476:

were a measuring stick by which Twitter was determined to have gone mainstream in early 2009.", currently in

1970:

Answer to LauraHale: Thats a good question! Perhaps it's best to split the article and merge the parts into

1149: 692:

multiple individual "X on Twitter" articles and dealing with the same issues every time a new one comes up.

4593:

The links are above. through ; there are also links in the article and at the very top of this discussion.

4489:

This article said that he merely created it, posted messages in it, and caused attention by exploiting it.

3861: 426: 4024: 3410: 1484:. While Ashton Kutcher is notable, I can't imagine why a Twitter account would need a Knowledge article. 928: 404:

Things like people having no policy-based deletion listings make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia.

343: 3233:(significance-wise). A line needs to be drawn for encyclopedic content. Knowledge isn't a spin-off from 1079:

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

168: 5066: 5035: 4878: 4868: 4711: 4014: 3913: 3715: 3612: 3389: 3350: 3333: 3273: 3204: 3059: 2923: 2781: 2708: 2655: 2563: 2092: 1249: 1089: 1018: 211: 2545:

be verifiable in the associated sources. If you're talking about claims made on this page, of course,

812:

shows you're wrong about academic interest. This appears to be a fishing expedition, especially when

425:, it simply breaks the first pillar of Knowledge. The supposed compliance with WP:GNG does not exist: 93:

doesn't matter in this case, and that's because policy trumps guidelines. The policy in this case is

5097: 4920: 4659: 4631: 4598: 4570: 4538: 4490: 4455: 4407: 4370: 4360: 4318: 4230: 4141: 4032: 3810: 3566: 3318: 3287: 3218: 3162: 3105: 3078: 3049: 2951: 2868: 2800: 2531: 2196: 2058: 2041: 2006: 1766:, but looking at cited (and not cited) sources this subject clearly passes our notability guideline. 1369: 1350: 134: 126: 69: 46: 164: 3586: 3184: 3010: 2961: 2889: 2507: 2497: 2445: 2373: 1763: 1647: 512: 281: 98: 3044:

This view continues to be tough to square with the fact that the pedia already has such articles.

1844:

in several marketing related texts demonstrate. This doesn't hold true for say an article titled

4955: 4904: 3946: 3904: 3856: 3540: 3425: 1828: 1708:

There's some synthesis going on here, and the subject can have ample coverage in the articles on

1635: 1460: 1434: 1425: 1254: 1745:

and thus is notable enough for an article, and I see no pressing other need to demand deletion.

1429: 4853: 4276:. The topic of the Kutcher/Twitter article, on the other hand, is neither fiction nor book nor 3910: 3908: 3700: 3657: 3120: 2738: 2496:

Once again, those sources are not solely or primarily about Ashton's Twitter, but rather about

2470: 2148: 709:

appears to me what the argument boils down because the academic one is not a valid argument. --

508: 372: 338: 298: 267: 3073:

Quite. When the argument is that 'this cannot exist,' the response is to show it does exist.

2183:

medium or have used it in a distinct way are often the subject of their own article (see eg.,

58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

5093: 5092:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

5062: 5031: 4864: 4010: 3890: 3711: 3329: 3269: 3200: 2919: 2777: 2704: 2651: 2559: 2381: 2359: 2221: 2127: 2088: 1734: 1271: 1244: 845: 817: 706: 545: 485: 477: 65: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2293:. Most of the delete !voters have thus far seemed unable to challenge the assertion that it 4655: 4627: 4594: 4566: 4534: 4451: 4403: 4356: 4314: 4226: 4137: 4061: 4028: 3806: 3648:? If people want to create meaningless junk like this they should found their own website: 3562: 3314: 3283: 3158: 3101: 3074: 3045: 2947: 2864: 2829: 2796: 2527: 2409: 2389: 2270: 2234: 2192: 2054: 1881: 1762:

For my tastes, all the celebrity-twitter-related articles should be deleted, starting from

1468: 1442: 1365: 1346: 1006: 540:

tiebreaker, but AFAIK it has no standing in a deletion discussion, nor would I want it to.

115: 3735: 1021:, and maybe those who want to vote must study these after this post and before voting. -- 8: 5049: 5016: 4971: 4890: 4783: 4745: 4645: 4617: 4584: 4556: 4523: 4439: 4388: 4339: 4295: 4264:

article has content of fictional and real-world development that may not be mergeable to

4257: 4181: 4083: 4051: 4000: 3975: 3594: 3504: 3452: 3180: 2848: 2840: 2586: 2503: 2441: 2324: 1938: 1771: 1738: 1521: 1226: 1207: 1161: 1121: 1110: 1097: 1026: 990: 520: 516: 462: 3802:

Also, this article is actually a media and publishing article, as this by another user

4738:

amount of worthy guarantee of a stand-alone article, regardless of amount of notability

3939: 3765: 3526: 3464: 3417: 2979: 2791: 2546: 2225: 1750: 1332: 940: 620: 102: 3670:

This is the most meaningless and ignorant comment I have ever seen in my entire life.

4949:

Umm.... can we leave notability and verifiability out of this discussion? I did read

4849: 4698: 4422: 4212: 4196: 3696: 3653: 3442: 3132: 3115: 2732: 2482: 2465: 2318:

is a section. All Knowledge articles synthesise notability from multiple sources: is

2140: 1784: 1721: 1548: 1535:: In my opinion, this is a synthesis of published material that advances a position ( 1296: 963: 854: 789: 732: 697:

How long do you propose making these articles if you include all the heavily covered

583: 446: 413: 384: 367: 310: 293: 262: 4046:. Easily and obviously notable. I can't see why there's a long discussion about it. 4376: 4352: 4133: 3886: 3868: 3680: 3482: 2670: 2640: 2355: 2255: 2115: 2031: 1987: 1898: 1562: 1388: 1304: 1284: 1040: 889: 662:

While I'm not a huge fan of more of these articles, the article passes independent

541: 481: 758: 749:

to try to push a point of view that the sources do not support. Hence, it is not

231: 4548: 4283: 4100: 3521:

Not enough notable content to justify fork from main article on Ashton. See what

2821: 2700: 2607: 2432: 2405: 2385: 2335: 2302: 2266: 2230: 2005:– To recognize its role in the contemporary cultural, social, and economic scene. 1949: 1877: 1536: 1464: 1438: 1148:

Some are inaccessible, as purchase is required. There are some with full access:

746: 702: 110: 2439:

be of a certain caliber and depth into the subject when notability is disputed.

2331:

in the article, not on what decisions go on behind the scenes about notability.

2139:- it's a minor section in his bio , not a separate article bloated by trivia. - 5045: 5012: 4967: 4886: 4779: 4741: 4728:

As I said, notability and reference are less important than content itself per

4641: 4613: 4608: 4580: 4552: 4519: 4515: 4507: 4435: 4384: 4335: 4330: 4291: 4273: 4204: 4177: 4158: 4114: 4079: 4069: 4047: 3996: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3930: 3882: 3827: 3590: 3501: 3241: 3234: 3136: 2844: 2817: 2727: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2582: 2555: 2486: 2351: 1971: 1767: 1709: 1623: 1517: 1323: 1221: 1203: 1157: 1117: 1093: 1022: 997: 564:

As an academic writing in this area, yes, there is redeeming academic value. --

388: 314: 4078:

All right then. Its notability is established by substantial media attention.

5138: 4990: 4950: 4928: 4882: 4809: 4765: 4729: 4716: 4690: 4511: 4495: 4261: 3788: 3759: 3582: 2897: 2885: 2766: 2680: 2518:

This reasoning is rather weak in light of the countervailing standard that a

2424: 2290: 2258:

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

2217: 2169: 2079: 1849: 1820: 1816: 1806: 1746: 1742: 1604: 1540: 1506: 1497: 1422: 1405: 1391:

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

1328: 1185: 1068: 1001: 936: 920: 821: 813: 804: 799: 763: 754: 742: 698: 663: 628: 332: 289: 106: 94: 90: 86: 82: 4732:(or any other guideline or essay about how to write a valuable article) and 2456:

You need to check the sources again with special attention to articles like

4694: 4208: 3852: 3148:

I wasn't calling you article's owner and certainly not calling you notable.

2314: 1544: 959: 850: 785: 750: 728: 724: 579: 442: 406: 331:, I did note that I don't really like Twitter articles. However, it passes 285: 4733: 4425:

activities are... are they recorded in books and journals? You don't see

4200: 3672: 3474: 2684: 2666: 2636: 2027: 1983: 1894: 1627: 1300: 1276: 4398:

that yes in spades. Knowledge has a plethora of articles on individual

4503: 4434:", right? Otherwise, this article would come down as unencyclopedic. -- 4269: 4253: 3748:

Twitter sized summaries are required for twitter sized attention spans.

3607:

as a sampling of why I actually think the case is stronger for keeping

2600: 2319: 2188: 1631: 5044:

How does keeping the stand-alone article benefit anything, as well? --

3646:

Any old bollocks we can source that refers to some bloke off the telly

2305:. I have not seen any argument advanced as to how exactly the article 2107: 820:. I don't like articles about Pokemon or Bieber albums but they pass 4351:

from are mentioned and linked to -- the response is little more than

4110: 4065: 3368: 3301: 3300:

say significance-wise, not coverage-wise. As in, encyclopedic value.

3246: 3063: 3032: 2983: 2966: 2933: 2901: 1543:, last point of the list), it could be treated as a pure curiosity.-- 362:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

89:. However, the Delete voters make a compelling case for why passing 5115: 4278: 4172: 3783: 2761: 2164: 1619: 1599: 1485: 1400: 3934: 2184: 2111: 2023: 1975: 1914: 1893:

after merging a very slimmed down version to the main article. --

1713: 688: 503: 5086:

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

2860:

It's A Tweet Life, A and K and the unbearable lightness of being

2301:

Some delete !voters advanced the view that the article breaches

619:

of them. The individual "X on Twitter" articles just border on

4499: 4265: 3578: 3458: 2577:- Just for kicks, must I remind you this for historical study: 1511: 1457:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

4958:

on one event or another may be met. That's why we're putting "

4915:

sources, all reliable, all almost entirely on subject, out of

4282:; it is ...something... or nothing... that lacks reaction per 3754:

is a vast improvement and outstandingly polite, note the ***'s

2053:

There is a common article for all celebrities on Knowledge. §§

4399: 1202:

can be part of Reception on this topic; what do you think? --

2890:

Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information

1815:

or some other article would make sense. But we already have

1634:

on Twitter. Very early drafts of this material can be found

3349:

greater degree of attention. The comparison is not valid.--

784:) and, finally, it's always you saying it passes WP:GNG. -- 3751:

WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR

3634:

WP:WHATTHEF***DOWEWANTGARBAGELIKETHISINANENCTCLOPAEDIAFOR

3447: 3642:

Half-eaten sandwiches of people featured in the tabloids

3363:

I'm guessing you didn't read the whole thing, because I

2888:

does not presume the article of encyclopedic value. And

2623:, which has little to do with Obama and everything with 1455:

P.S. - For what it's worth, I recently iVoted to delete

4844:

significance? Without a clearly-defined explanation of

4199:

in this case, and those sources cannot be used to meet

3023:

I agree with this 100%. Someone might as well create a

2843:

and more notable than this article's subject itself. --

615:

of these twitter accounts that is of interest, not the

230: 4308:

If you're looking for reaction in books, it's there:

2265:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —

1398:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 816:was thrown in, in order to justify a vote based on 432:is not an indiscriminate collection of information 3966:. Either that, or FAC it onto the Main Page, per 727:? (Theoretically it could have been a COI too) -- 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 5136: 5100:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3929:Not a notable topic. This content can do on the 1622:: I have (sub after reorganisation) chapters on 3937:page, but this isn't needed and isn't notable. 3710:Knowledge. An airhead like me knows that much. 261:make a mockery of building an encyclopaedia. — 3405:- Articles are supposed to be about topics of 3367:say 'significance-wise', not 'coverage-wise'. 2759:want to write a scholarly article on this. 1242:Guy has a lot of Twitter followers. So what? 1980:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 1935:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 1821:Knowledge is not a collection of case studies 1718:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 1219:Keep this article! I agree with Tony here! -- 954:list of Internet-related deletion discussions 609:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 244: 5113: 4498:article may have been retold in articles of 3855:; we do not include gossips or any pop bs.-- 2621:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories 1913:Question for Bensin: The main article being 952:Note: This debate has been included in the 741:The whole thing is reliably sourced, passes 2631:. Which reminds me: someone needs to write 1933:I would suggest that the "main article" be 458:per Vituzzu and WP:NOT. <begin rant: --> 4203:or any of the salad of policies regarding 3589:, unless you used typo as some sarcasm. -- 4919:on the page. Now, you could easily have 4482:Whatever the publisher's message does in 3176:Strong long hard deep unambiguous DELETE' 1132:the academic references available to cite 507:article doesn't measure up to any of the 4841:not famous for posting stuff on websites 2423:The key issue here is that to establish 2401:Barack Obama in the News on 24 June 2012 2247:Arbitrary break 3 - Relisting, Part Deux 364:list of content for rescue consideration 3671: 3473: 1802:humor and entertainment of Barack Obama 1275: 986:- This AFD should have been opened as " 45:For an explanation of the process, see 14: 5137: 2214:in the title of the news article alone 1790:television appearances of Barack Obama 935:are all valid encyclopaedic subjects. 2106:. I usually argue WP should be about 1848:where her Twitter usage doesn't pass 975:Arbitrary break - Non-vote consensus? 349: 4176:is about NOTHING... or something? -- 3805:commenting today discusses further. 3150: 2579:WP:articles for deletion/Olivia Hack 2427:we're looking for articles that are 1152:. I'm still finding ones that pass " 844:in order to justify a vote based on 480:, which was kept by default at AfD. 25: 4427:Ashton Kutcher on instant messaging 4248:Okay, after reading all arguments, 3146:The Twitter account owner i meant. 2344:World War II and American animation 339: 259:Category:Celebrity_Twitter_accounts 23: 1796:newspaper coverage of Barack Obama 1630:on Twitter, with a fair bit about 1320:Barack Obama in the New York Times 24: 5156: 2862:, they credit you for the idea. 2334:Perhaps instead those suggesting 3734: 3636:. Idiotic. Puerile. What next - 3151: 2858:I do hope, when someone writes, 1116:in this arbitrary break then? -- 29: 3217:There is no difference between 2043: 2008: 1430:Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence 41:deletion review on 2012 July 25 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 5107: 4921:looked at the article yourself 4903:article about AK and twitter, 2340:Christianity and homosexuality 1783:the applicable policy here is 335:so it is acceptable. Regards, 13: 1: 3500: 1380:Arbitrary break 2 - Relisting 723:So why doesn't it fall under 5116:"Twitter and the Dalai Lama" 4808:to CelebX on Social Media. 4379:is part of an essay and may 3638:Farts of the rich and famous 3231:Ashton Kutcher on Formspring 3025:CNN Breaking News on Twitter 2289:Many keep !voters cited the 1200:Opinion piece from AdAge.com 344: 7: 5114:Smith, Peter (2009-02-09). 4025:Abraham Lincoln and slavery 2687:, and as far as I can tell 2625:BLP violations pre-redacted 2462:this New York Times article 1274:is not a reason to delete. 329:Justin Bieber on Twitter GA 327:although when I passed the 10: 5161: 4547:You forgot one thing from 4432:Ashton Kutcher on internet 3525:looks like in comparison. 3223:Ashton Kutcher on Facebook 2458:this Time magazine article 1459:largely because it failed 1130:What are your thoughts on 1067:I'm not sure if it passes 1013:Nevertheless, I'm reading 4491:Suicide of Tyler Clementi 3733: 3621:21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3599:18:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3571:16:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3550:14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3512:18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3488:19:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3432:18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3409:significance. We are not 3398:17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3376:01:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3359:19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3338:13:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3323:12:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3309:01:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 3292:11:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3278:11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3263:, this is merely the way 3254:10:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3227:Ashton Kutcher on MySpace 3219:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter 3209:08:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3189:07:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 3167:19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 3142:18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 3110:17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 3083:15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 3070:15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC 3054:14:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 3040:12:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 3029:Ashton Kutcher on MySpace 3019:10:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2991:11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2974:10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2956:10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2941:06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2928:06:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2909:05:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2896:and certainly trumps the 2873:16:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2853:02:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2835:02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC) 2805:23:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2786:22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2771:22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2742:14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2713:22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2675:18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2660:05:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2645:22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 2612:15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 2591:23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2568:05:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 2536:14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2514:02:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 2492:23:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2452:23:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2414:02:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 2394:23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2364:00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 2275:23:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2201:09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2174:07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2154:23:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 2132:06:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 2097:00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 2063:17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 2049:03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 2036:16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 2014:12:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1992:16:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1962:04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1942:02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1927:01:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1903:01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 1886:00:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1863:00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1833:22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1776:09:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1755:03:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1725:17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1700:05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1676:04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1661:04:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC) 1609:15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1585:16:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1553:11:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1526:10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1501:10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1473:14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC) 1447:09:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1410:05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 1374:12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 1355:12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 1337:12:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 1309:22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) 1290:03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC) 1261:22:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 1235:01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC) 1212:06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1193:20:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 1166:05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1144:05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1126:00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1102:00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1063:00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 1031:14:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 968:01:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 945:22:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 912:21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 859:11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC) 834:05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC) 794:23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 776:11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 766:there. Go fish again? -- 737:11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 719:02:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 676:21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 641:22:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 603:22:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 588:22:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 574:21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 550:21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 525:21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 490:21:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 467:20:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 451:15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 418:14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 394:13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 355:13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 320:13:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 273:13:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 135:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter 127:Ashton Kutcher on Twitter 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 5145:Pages at deletion review 5089:Please do not modify it. 5071:09:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 5054:08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 5040:08:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 5021:08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 5007:08:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4976:07:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4945:07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4895:07:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4873:07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4858:06:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4826:04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4788:04:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4773:03:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4750:03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4724:03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4703:23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4664:10:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4650:05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4636:04:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4622:03:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4603:03:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4589:03:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4575:03:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4561:03:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4543:02:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4528:02:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4460:01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4444:01:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4412:01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4393:00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4365:00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4344:23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4323:22:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4300:21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4235:11:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 4217:20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4186:19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4166:19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4146:19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4119:17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4088:19:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4074:17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4056:15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4037:11:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4019:11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 4005:09:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 3993:Ashton Kutcher and shoes 3980:08:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 3955:15:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3922:15:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3895:12:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3874:07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3844:05:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3815:12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3793:02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3770:19:48, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC) 3720:09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3705:04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3686:03:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3662:02:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 3587:Justin Bieber on Twitter 3523:Justin Beiber on Twitter 3440:I wasn't aware that the 2498:Celebrity use of Twitter 2239:08:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) 2191:(ongoing) etc., etc.) - 1764:Justin Bieber on Twitter 1648:Justin Bieber on Twitter 1322:section? Obviously the 759:early draft of my thesis 282:Justin Bieber on Twitter 121:19:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) 61:Please do not modify it. 4877:I've already mentioned 4243:Arbitration break 4 - ? 3027:article, or perhaps an 2978:One must also consider 1461:Knowledge:Summary style 1435:Knowledge:Summary style 1426:Knowledge:Summary style 4899:ok, since you insist. 4064:vote to be discarded. 4023:Odd. By this argument 2406:Michael Scott Cuthbert 2044:— Bill william compton 2009:— Bill william compton 1878:Michael Scott Cuthbert 1846:Anna Meares on Twitter 1812:celebrities on Twitter 1720:and leave it at that. 1087: 1078: 1015:WP:notability (events) 842:So your best point is 509:Knowledge:Five pillars 4286:. If there is a book 4106:Anne Rice of Facebook 2380:basically amounts to 2222:Oprah Winfrey Network 1735:The Rest of the Story 1080: 1072: 478:List of Twitter users 4712:The Devil's Advocate 4579:... Link, please? -- 4161:called '@aplusk'. – 3914:The Devil's Advocate 3613:The Devil's Advocate 3603:I diagree Sven. See 3390:The Devil's Advocate 3351:The Devil's Advocate 1781:Weak delete or merge 1154:significant coverage 578:Academic writing? -- 101:(and to some degree 4879:WP:notability (web) 4258:Full Service (book) 3742:The Laughing Nutter 3453:The Huffington Post 3060:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 3011:And Adoil Descended 2916:as a consequence of 2841:Full Service (book) 1785:...not case studies 1739:Talk:Ashton Kutcher 1090:WP:Notability (web) 1019:WP:notability (web) 4421:general) people's 4371:WP:Manual of Style 4060:AN entirely empty 3839:Operation Big Bear 3465:The New York Times 2635:--should be easy. 2633:Twitter on Twitter 2520:particularly noted 2226:The New York Times 2087:woops, signature. 1000:. "Keeps" rely on 517:WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS 77:The result was 4771: 4722: 4423:instant messaging 3774: 3773: 3547: 3443:Los Angeles Times 3140: 2962:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2863: 2490: 2412: 2374:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 2284:Relisting comment 2277: 1884: 1505:The same reasons 1412: 1270:Notable article. 1191: 970: 957: 513:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 396: 392: 318: 99:WP:INDISCRIMINATE 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 5152: 5130: 5129: 5127: 5126: 5111: 5091: 5063:Darryl from Mars 5032:Darryl from Mars 5004: 5003: 5000: 4997: 4994: 4942: 4941: 4938: 4935: 4932: 4911:article. Three 4865:Darryl from Mars 4823: 4822: 4819: 4816: 4813: 4770: 4721: 4164: 4011:Darryl from Mars 3950: 3943: 3859: 3840: 3834: 3768: 3764: 3738: 3731: 3730: 3712:Darryl from Mars 3684: 3677: 3546: 3541: 3538: 3510: 3486: 3479: 3430: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3330:Darryl from Mars 3270:Darryl from Mars 3201:Darryl from Mars 3156: 3155: 3154: 3149: 3118: 2920:Darryl from Mars 2857: 2832: 2827: 2824: 2778:Darryl from Mars 2736: 2705:Darryl from Mars 2652:Darryl from Mars 2604: 2560:Darryl from Mars 2512: 2510: 2468: 2450: 2448: 2408: 2264: 2260: 2187:(long defunct), 2151: 2147: 2143: 2124: 2123: 2089:Darryl from Mars 2082:isn't a problem. 2046: 2045: 2011: 2010: 1880: 1581: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1397: 1393: 1288: 1281: 1259: 1257: 1252: 1247: 1233: 1231: 1224: 1190: 1115: 1109: 1059: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1047: 1044: 995: 989: 958: 951: 908: 905: 902: 899: 896: 893: 824:so they stay. -- 753:. What sort of 409: 370: 361: 351: 346: 341: 296: 270: 249: 248: 234: 186: 176: 158: 118: 113: 97:, in particular 63: 33: 32: 26: 5160: 5159: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5124: 5122: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5098:deletion review 5087: 5001: 4998: 4995: 4992: 4991: 4939: 4936: 4933: 4930: 4929: 4901:Washington Post 4836:include content 4820: 4817: 4814: 4811: 4810: 4656:Alanscottwalker 4628:Alanscottwalker 4595:Alanscottwalker 4567:Alanscottwalker 4535:Alanscottwalker 4452:Alanscottwalker 4404:Alanscottwalker 4357:Alanscottwalker 4315:Alanscottwalker 4245: 4227:Alanscottwalker 4162: 4138:Alanscottwalker 4029:Alanscottwalker 3948: 3941: 3871: 3864: 3857: 3842: 3838: 3828: 3807:Alanscottwalker 3766: 3758: 3673: 3563:Alanscottwalker 3542: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3475: 3470:People Magazine 3426: 3422: 3418: 3416: 3412:People Magazine 3315:AnimeshKulkarni 3284:Alanscottwalker 3159:AnimeshKulkarni 3152: 3147: 3102:AnimeshKulkarni 3075:Alanscottwalker 3046:Alanscottwalker 2948:Alanscottwalker 2865:Alanscottwalker 2830: 2825: 2822: 2797:Alanscottwalker 2734: 2602: 2528:Alanscottwalker 2508: 2502: 2446: 2440: 2253: 2249: 2193:Alanscottwalker 2149: 2145: 2141: 2117: 2116: 2055:AnimeshKulkarni 2042: 2007: 1939:William Thweatt 1626:on Twitter and 1579: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1564: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1386: 1382: 1366:Alanscottwalker 1347:Alanscottwalker 1277: 1255: 1250: 1245: 1243: 1230: 1227: 1222: 1220: 1113: 1107: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1042: 993: 987: 977: 906: 903: 900: 897: 894: 891: 521:William Thweatt 463:William Thweatt 407: 266: 191: 182: 149: 133: 130: 116: 111: 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5158: 5148: 5147: 5132: 5131: 5105: 5103: 5102: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 5058: 5057: 5056: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5023: 4829: 4828: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4705: 4689:passes easily 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4609:Ashton Kutcher 4516:Ashton Kutcher 4508:Diane Chambers 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4331:Fahrenheit 451 4303: 4302: 4274:Diane Chambers 4244: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4220: 4219: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4159:Ashton Kutcher 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4122: 4121: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4021: 3982: 3957: 3931:Ashton Kutcher 3924: 3897: 3883:Ashton Kutcher 3876: 3869: 3862: 3846: 3836: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3796: 3795: 3772: 3771: 3755: 3753: 3749: 3745: 3744: 3739: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3689: 3688: 3665: 3664: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3601: 3574: 3573: 3553: 3552: 3533: 3529: 3515: 3514: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3435: 3434: 3400: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3294: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3181:LuciferWildCat 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2744: 2728:Ashton Kutcher 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2614: 2593: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2504:Steven Walling 2442:Steven Walling 2418: 2417: 2416: 2396: 2382:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2377: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2323:The policy on 2299: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2262: 2261: 2250: 2248: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2177: 2176: 2156: 2134: 2100: 2099: 2084: 2083: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2017: 2016: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1972:Ashton Kutcher 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1930: 1929: 1906: 1905: 1888: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1836: 1835: 1778: 1757: 1727: 1710:Ashton Kutcher 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1678: 1663: 1624:Brendon Fevola 1612: 1611: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1556: 1555: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1450: 1449: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1395: 1394: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1358: 1357: 1339: 1324:Ashton Kutcher 1313: 1312: 1311: 1272:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1264: 1263: 1237: 1228: 1214: 1196: 1195: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1104: 1035:Time Magazine 976: 973: 972: 971: 948: 947: 914: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 846:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 818:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 810:Google Scholar 745:, does not do 707:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 679: 678: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 493: 492: 469: 453: 420: 402:Keep and close 398: 397: 358: 357: 322: 284:just became a 252: 251: 188: 129: 124: 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5157: 5146: 5143: 5142: 5140: 5121: 5117: 5110: 5106: 5101: 5099: 5095: 5090: 5084: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5059: 5055: 5051: 5047: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5028: 5022: 5018: 5014: 5010: 5009: 5008: 5005: 4988: 4983: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4964:verifiability 4961: 4957: 4956:verifiability 4952: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4943: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4842: 4837: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4827: 4824: 4807: 4802: 4799: 4798: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4768: 4767: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4719: 4718: 4713: 4709: 4706: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4685: 4684: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4619: 4615: 4610: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4512:Frasier Crane 4509: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4496:Sam and Diane 4492: 4487: 4486: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4428: 4424: 4420: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4401: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4390: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4373: 4372: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4332: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4313: 4310: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4280: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4262:Sam and Diane 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4246: 4236: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4174: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4160: 4156: 4153: 4152: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4136:, dosn't it? 4135: 4130: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4107: 4102: 4098: 4095: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4062:WP:ITSNOTABLE 4059: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4042: 4038: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3983: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3958: 3956: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3945: 3944: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3925: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3909: 3907: 3905: 3901: 3898: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3877: 3875: 3872: 3867: 3865: 3860: 3854: 3850: 3849:Strong delete 3847: 3845: 3841: 3835: 3833: 3832: 3825: 3822: 3821: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3785: 3779: 3776: 3775: 3769: 3763: 3762: 3752: 3747: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3737: 3732: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3687: 3682: 3678: 3676: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3663: 3659: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3628: 3627: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3602: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3583:Justin Bieber 3580: 3577:Ahem, that's 3576: 3575: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3548: 3545: 3539: 3537: 3524: 3520: 3517: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3506: 3503: 3499:. Per above. 3498: 3495: 3494: 3489: 3484: 3480: 3478: 3472:. Go figure. 3471: 3467: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3455: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3433: 3429: 3421: 3414: 3413: 3408: 3404: 3401: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3386: 3383: 3377: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3347: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3328:is reported. 3326: 3325: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3299: 3295: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3266: 3262: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3243: 3239: 3237: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3216: 3215: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3197: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3174: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3117: 3114:What owner?-- 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3071: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3007: 3004: 2992: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2981: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2963: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2880: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2819: 2815: 2812: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2758: 2753: 2752:encyclopedia 2748: 2745: 2743: 2740: 2739: 2737: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2597: 2594: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2511: 2505: 2499: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2443: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2429:substantially 2426: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2402: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2375: 2372:Then there's 2371: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2347: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2287: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2263: 2259: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2144: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2085: 2081: 2080:1089_(number) 2077: 2074: 2073: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2015: 2012: 2004: 2001: 2000: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1872: 1871: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825:Shooterwalker 1822: 1818: 1817:Twitter usage 1814: 1813: 1808: 1804: 1803: 1798: 1797: 1792: 1791: 1786: 1782: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1728: 1726: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1679: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1586: 1583: 1582: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1507:Sam and Diane 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1483: 1480: 1479: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1396: 1392: 1390: 1385: 1384: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1343: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1280: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1241: 1238: 1236: 1232: 1225: 1218: 1215: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1188: 1187: 1182: 1179: 1178: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1112: 1105: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1086: 1085: 1077: 1076: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1060: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007:WP:notability 1003: 999: 992: 985: 983: 979: 978: 969: 965: 961: 955: 950: 949: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 915: 913: 910: 909: 887: 884: 883: 860: 856: 852: 848: 847: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 806: 801: 797: 796: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 778: 777: 773: 769: 765: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 739: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 690: 686: 683: 682: 681: 680: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 658: 657: 642: 638: 634: 630: 625: 624: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 591: 590: 589: 585: 581: 577: 576: 575: 571: 567: 563: 551: 547: 543: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 505: 500: 497: 496: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 479: 473: 470: 468: 464: 457: 454: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 435: 434: 433: 424: 421: 419: 415: 411: 410: 403: 400: 399: 395: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 369: 365: 360: 359: 356: 353: 352: 347: 342: 334: 330: 326: 323: 321: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 295: 291: 287: 283: 280: 277: 276: 275: 274: 271: 269: 264: 260: 255: 247: 243: 240: 237: 233: 229: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 197: 194: 193:Find sources: 189: 185: 180: 174: 170: 166: 162: 157: 153: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 131: 128: 123: 122: 119: 114: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 88: 84: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5123:. Retrieved 5119: 5109: 5088: 5085: 4987:Businessweek 4981: 4963: 4959: 4924: 4916: 4912: 4850:AndyTheGrump 4845: 4840: 4835: 4805: 4800: 4764: 4737: 4715: 4707: 4686: 4484: 4483: 4431: 4418: 4380: 4369: 4329: 4287: 4277: 4249: 4192: 4171: 4154: 4128: 4096: 4043: 3984: 3959: 3947: 3940: 3938: 3933:page or the 3926: 3899: 3878: 3853:encyclopedia 3848: 3830: 3829: 3823: 3782: 3777: 3760: 3741: 3697:AndyTheGrump 3674: 3654:AndyTheGrump 3650:Sowhatopedia 3629: 3608: 3605:this article 3543: 3528: 3518: 3496: 3476: 3469: 3463: 3457: 3451: 3441: 3411: 3406: 3402: 3384: 3370: 3369: 3364: 3303: 3302: 3297: 3264: 3260: 3248: 3247: 3235: 3195: 3175: 3116:TonyTheTiger 3097: 3065: 3064: 3034: 3033: 3005: 2985: 2984: 2968: 2967: 2935: 2934: 2915: 2903: 2902: 2893: 2881: 2859: 2816:WP:POPCRAP, 2813: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2731: 2723: 2629:X on Twitter 2624: 2616: 2595: 2574: 2550: 2526:and AdAge). 2519: 2466:TonyTheTiger 2436: 2428: 2420: 2328: 2325:WP:SYNTHESIS 2315:User:Nickanc 2310: 2306: 2294: 2283: 2254: 2213: 2163: 2158: 2136: 2119: 2118: 2103: 2075: 2002: 1890: 1873: 1810: 1800: 1794: 1788: 1780: 1759: 1729: 1705: 1688: 1598: 1593: 1563: 1532: 1510: 1481: 1418: 1399: 1387: 1361: 1341: 1315: 1278: 1267: 1239: 1216: 1184: 1180: 1153: 1106:Shall I add 1082: 1081: 1074: 1073: 1041: 1010: 981: 980: 916: 890: 885: 843: 684: 659: 616: 612: 498: 471: 455: 438: 431: 429: 427: 422: 405: 401: 368:TonyTheTiger 336: 324: 294:TonyTheTiger 278: 265: 263:billinghurst 257:Things like 256: 253: 241: 235: 227: 220: 214: 208: 202: 192: 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 3887:Jezhotwells 3851:this is an 3561:Has Bieber? 2980:WP:NOTDIARY 2792:WP:NOTPAPER 2547:WP:SYNTHNOT 2356:Anarchangel 2327:is what is 2120:Ultracobalt 1628:Anna Meares 1268:Strong keep 621:WP:Fancruft 542:Anarchangel 482:Anarchangel 439:stand-alone 218:free images 117:| comment _ 112:-Scottywong 103:WP:NOTDIARY 5125:2012-05-27 4960:notability 4913:impeccable 4763:beliefs.-- 4504:Sam Malone 4381:or may not 4270:Sam Malone 4254:Demi Moore 4197:WP:PRIMARY 3611:article.-- 3468:were like 3133:WP:CHICAGO 2884:. Meeting 2483:WP:CHICAGO 2425:notability 2386:Tom Morris 2320:Tom Cruise 2267:Tom Morris 2231:Uzma Gamal 2189:SCOTUSblog 1632:Zac Dawson 1465:Uzma Gamal 1439:Uzma Gamal 1297:WP:ILIKEIT 1223:Tito Dutta 1111:not a vote 991:not a vote 984:for now(?) 933:Technology 515:and fails 385:WP:CHICAGO 311:WP:CHICAGO 5094:talk page 5046:George Ho 5013:George Ho 4968:George Ho 4907:article, 4887:George Ho 4780:George Ho 4742:George Ho 4642:George Ho 4614:George Ho 4581:George Ho 4553:George Ho 4520:George Ho 4436:George Ho 4385:George Ho 4377:WP:BELONG 4353:WP:BELONG 4336:George Ho 4292:George Ho 4178:George Ho 4134:WP:BELONG 4080:Everyking 4048:Everyking 3997:IRWolfie- 3991:and make 3972:MistyMorn 3949:Nidhiki05 3831:Wizardman 3591:George Ho 3296:Again, I 2845:George Ho 2583:George Ho 1954:LauraHale 1919:LauraHale 1855:LauraHale 1768:Cavarrone 1692:LauraHale 1668:LauraHale 1653:LauraHale 1518:George Ho 1342:Questions 1204:George Ho 1158:George Ho 1136:LauraHale 1118:George Ho 1094:George Ho 1023:George Ho 960:• Gene93k 925:Marketing 826:LauraHale 768:LauraHale 711:LauraHale 668:LauraHale 633:LauraHale 617:existence 595:LauraHale 566:LauraHale 460:rant: --> 66:talk page 5139:Category 5120:IT World 5096:or in a 4909:LA Times 4766:Milowent 4717:Milowent 4549:WP:IINFO 4284:WP:IINFO 4279:Seinfeld 4173:Seinfeld 4170:Just as 4101:WP:UNDUE 3761:Penyulap 3238:Magazine 2735:itsJamie 2726:back to 2701:WP:CARES 2551:need not 2433:WP:SYNTH 2336:WP:SYNTH 2329:included 2303:WP:SYNTH 2256:Relisted 1950:WP:UNDUE 1747:Qwyrxian 1594:Question 1537:Wp:Synth 1421:- Valid 1389:Relisted 1329:Jpatokal 1186:Milowent 1150:AAAI.org 937:Hawkeye7 747:WP:SYNTH 703:WP:UNDUE 179:View log 68:or in a 4982:I think 4962:" and " 4695:DeansFA 4209:Tgeairn 4205:WP:BLPN 3968:WP:**** 3964:WP:WHIM 3935:Twitter 3900:Comment 3778:Comment 3536:anguard 3427:Shalott 3407:lasting 3261:However 3242:WP:WHIM 3137:WP:FOUR 3031:. LOL. 2823:Pumpkin 2818:WP:FART 2747:Comment 2697:WP:VSCA 2693:WP:PLAG 2689:WP:NPOV 2683:, it's 2575:Comment 2556:WP:WHYN 2487:WP:FOUR 2352:WP:CALC 2185:Nupedia 2112:Niobium 2108:Cézanne 2024:Twitter 1976:Twitter 1915:Twitter 1722:AniMate 1714:Twitter 1681:Twitter 1545:Nickanc 1240:Delete: 1181:Comment 982:Neutral 919:Passes 851:Vituzzu 786:Vituzzu 729:Vituzzu 689:twitter 685:Comment 580:Vituzzu 504:Twitter 499:Comment 443:Vituzzu 408:Lugnuts 389:WP:FOUR 315:WP:FOUR 268:sDrewth 224:WP refs 212:scholar 152:protect 147:history 4951:WP:GNG 4883:WP:GNG 4881:, and 4730:WP:MOS 4691:WP:GNG 4510:, and 4500:Cheers 4288:mainly 4266:Cheers 4250:delete 4193:Delete 4163:Plarem 4155:Delete 4097:Delete 3985:Delete 3960:Delete 3927:Delete 3879:Delete 3824:Delete 3675:Statυs 3630:Delete 3579:Bieber 3519:Delete 3477:Statυs 3459:Forbes 3403:Delete 3098:Delete 3006:Delete 2898:WP:GNG 2894:policy 2886:WP:GNG 2882:Delete 2814:Delete 2695:, not 2691:, not 2681:WP:GNG 2667:Drmies 2637:Drmies 2617:Delete 2421:Delete 2410:(talk) 2291:WP:GNG 2218:WP:GNG 2159:Delete 2146:really 2137:Delete 2028:Bensin 1984:Bensin 1895:Bensin 1891:Delete 1882:(talk) 1850:WP:GNG 1807:WP:NOT 1743:WP:GNG 1706:Delete 1541:WP:GNG 1533:Delete 1512:Cheers 1482:Delete 1423:WP:GNG 1316:Delete 1301:Drmies 1279:Statυs 1069:WP:GNG 1002:WP:GNG 921:WP:GNG 822:WP:GNG 814:WP:COI 805:WP:GNG 800:WP:GNG 764:WP:COI 755:WP:COI 743:WP:GNG 699:WP:GNG 664:WP:GNG 629:WP:GNG 456:Delete 423:Delete 333:WP:GNG 290:WP:GNG 196:Google 156:delete 107:WP:NOT 95:WP:NOT 91:WP:GNG 87:WP:GNG 83:WP:GNG 79:delete 4905:Wired 4806:merge 4485:those 4400:blogs 4272:, or 3789:talk 3502:TBran 3240:. As 3196:could 2960:Well 2767:talk 2724:Merge 2596:Merge 2170:talk 1605:talk 1580:Focus 1509:from 1437:. -- 1406:talk 1058:Focus 998:SNOWy 929:Media 907:Focus 782:these 751:WP:OR 725:WP:OR 660:Keep: 286:WP:GA 239:JSTOR 200:books 184:Stats 173:views 165:watch 161:links 16:< 5067:talk 5050:talk 5036:talk 5017:talk 4972:talk 4891:talk 4869:talk 4854:talk 4801:Keep 4784:talk 4746:talk 4740:. -- 4734:WP:N 4710:per 4708:Keep 4699:talk 4687:Keep 4660:talk 4646:talk 4632:talk 4618:talk 4599:talk 4585:talk 4571:talk 4557:talk 4539:talk 4524:talk 4456:talk 4440:talk 4408:talk 4389:talk 4361:talk 4340:talk 4319:talk 4296:talk 4231:talk 4213:talk 4201:WP:N 4182:talk 4142:talk 4115:talk 4111:Tarc 4084:talk 4070:talk 4066:Tarc 4052:talk 4044:Keep 4033:talk 4015:talk 4001:talk 3976:talk 3962:per 3918:talk 3891:talk 3811:talk 3716:talk 3701:talk 3681:talk 3658:talk 3652:... 3632:per 3617:talk 3609:this 3595:talk 3585:and 3581:for 3567:talk 3544:Wha? 3532:ven 3497:Keep 3483:talk 3462:and 3419:Lady 3394:talk 3385:Keep 3371:Till 3355:talk 3334:talk 3319:talk 3304:Till 3288:talk 3274:talk 3249:Till 3221:and 3205:talk 3185:talk 3163:talk 3106:talk 3079:talk 3066:Till 3050:talk 3035:Till 3015:talk 2986:Till 2969:Till 2952:talk 2936:Till 2924:talk 2904:Till 2869:talk 2849:talk 2831:talk 2801:talk 2782:talk 2733:OhNo 2709:talk 2685:WP:V 2671:talk 2656:talk 2641:talk 2603:ASEM 2587:talk 2581:. -- 2564:talk 2532:talk 2509:talk 2460:and 2447:talk 2437:must 2390:talk 2360:talk 2298:DRV. 2295:does 2271:talk 2235:talk 2197:talk 2128:talk 2110:and 2104:Keep 2093:talk 2076:Keep 2059:talk 2032:talk 2026:. -- 2003:Keep 1988:talk 1978:and 1958:talk 1923:talk 1899:talk 1874:Keep 1859:talk 1829:talk 1772:talk 1760:Keep 1751:talk 1730:Keep 1712:and 1696:talk 1672:talk 1657:talk 1644:here 1642:and 1640:here 1636:here 1549:talk 1522:talk 1498:Talk 1469:talk 1443:talk 1419:Keep 1370:talk 1362:Keep 1351:talk 1333:talk 1305:talk 1285:talk 1217:Keep 1208:talk 1162:talk 1140:talk 1134:? -- 1122:talk 1098:talk 1027:talk 1017:and 964:talk 941:talk 931:and 917:Keep 886:Keep 855:talk 830:talk 790:talk 772:talk 733:talk 715:talk 672:talk 637:talk 599:talk 584:talk 570:talk 546:talk 486:talk 472:Keep 447:talk 414:talk 325:Keep 279:Keep 232:FENS 206:news 169:logs 143:talk 139:edit 5002:ve 4996:e S 4940:ve 4934:e S 4925:say 4846:why 4821:ve 4815:e S 4736:'s 4419:not 4129:not 3970:. — 3942:Toa 3858:GoP 3784:DGG 3640:? 3448:CNN 3365:did 3321:) 3298:did 3236:NOW 3229:or 3165:) 3129:BIO 3108:) 3062:? 2826:Sky 2762:DGG 2757:not 2479:BIO 2464:.-- 2384:. — 2342:or 2165:DGG 2150:can 2142:You 2061:) 1937:.-- 1620:DGG 1600:DGG 1428:of 1401:DGG 613:use 523:| 475:--> 465:| 381:BIO 307:BIO 292:.-- 246:TWL 181:• 177:– ( 5141:: 5118:. 5069:) 5052:) 5038:) 5019:) 4999:te 4993:Th 4974:) 4937:te 4931:Th 4917:42 4893:) 4871:) 4856:) 4818:te 4812:Th 4786:) 4769:• 4748:) 4720:• 4701:) 4693:-- 4662:) 4648:) 4634:) 4620:) 4612:-- 4601:) 4587:) 4573:) 4559:) 4541:) 4526:) 4506:, 4502:, 4458:) 4442:) 4410:) 4391:) 4363:) 4342:) 4321:) 4311:, 4298:) 4268:, 4233:) 4215:) 4184:) 4144:) 4117:) 4099:- 4086:) 4072:) 4054:) 4035:) 4017:) 4003:) 3995:. 3978:) 3920:) 3893:) 3885:. 3813:) 3791:) 3718:) 3703:) 3660:) 3644:? 3619:) 3597:) 3569:) 3508:ey 3505:dl 3456:, 3450:, 3446:, 3423:of 3415:. 3396:) 3357:) 3336:) 3290:) 3276:) 3225:, 3207:) 3187:) 3157:§§ 3139:) 3081:) 3058:.. 3052:) 3017:) 2954:) 2926:) 2871:) 2851:) 2803:) 2784:) 2769:) 2711:) 2673:) 2658:) 2643:) 2610:) 2589:) 2566:) 2534:) 2506:• 2489:) 2444:• 2392:) 2362:) 2354:. 2346:? 2313:. 2311:is 2307:is 2273:) 2237:) 2199:) 2172:) 2130:) 2095:) 2034:) 1990:) 1974:, 1960:) 1925:) 1901:) 1861:) 1831:) 1823:. 1799:, 1793:, 1774:) 1753:) 1698:) 1674:) 1659:) 1638:, 1607:) 1551:) 1524:) 1516:-- 1496:| 1471:) 1445:) 1408:) 1372:) 1353:) 1335:) 1307:) 1299:? 1210:) 1189:• 1164:) 1142:) 1124:) 1114:}} 1108:{{ 1100:) 1029:) 1009:, 994:}} 988:{{ 966:) 956:. 943:) 927:, 923:. 857:) 832:) 792:) 774:) 735:) 717:) 674:) 639:) 623:. 601:) 586:) 572:) 548:) 519:-- 488:) 461:-- 449:) 416:) 391:) 366:. 317:) 226:) 171:| 167:| 163:| 159:| 154:| 150:| 145:| 141:| 43:. 5128:. 5065:( 5048:( 5034:( 5015:( 4970:( 4889:( 4867:( 4852:( 4782:( 4744:( 4697:( 4658:( 4644:( 4630:( 4616:( 4597:( 4583:( 4569:( 4555:( 4537:( 4522:( 4454:( 4438:( 4430:" 4406:( 4387:( 4359:( 4338:( 4317:( 4294:( 4229:( 4211:( 4180:( 4140:( 4113:( 4082:( 4068:( 4050:( 4031:( 4013:( 3999:( 3974:( 3916:( 3889:( 3870:N 3863:T 3809:( 3787:( 3767:☏ 3714:( 3699:( 3683:) 3679:( 3656:( 3615:( 3593:( 3565:( 3534:M 3530:S 3485:) 3481:( 3392:( 3353:( 3332:( 3317:( 3286:( 3272:( 3265:I 3203:( 3183:( 3161:( 3135:/ 3131:/ 3127:/ 3125:C 3123:/ 3121:T 3119:( 3104:( 3077:( 3048:( 3013:( 2950:( 2922:( 2867:( 2847:( 2799:( 2780:( 2765:( 2707:( 2669:( 2654:( 2639:( 2608:t 2606:( 2601:M 2585:( 2562:( 2530:( 2485:/ 2481:/ 2477:/ 2475:C 2473:/ 2471:T 2469:( 2388:( 2358:( 2269:( 2233:( 2195:( 2168:( 2126:( 2091:( 2057:( 2030:( 1986:( 1956:( 1921:( 1897:( 1857:( 1827:( 1770:( 1749:( 1694:( 1670:( 1655:( 1603:( 1577:m 1574:a 1571:e 1568:r 1565:D 1547:( 1520:( 1493:P 1490:I 1487:J 1467:( 1441:( 1404:( 1368:( 1349:( 1331:( 1303:( 1287:) 1283:( 1256:p 1251:b 1246:p 1229:✉ 1206:( 1160:( 1138:( 1120:( 1096:( 1055:m 1052:a 1049:e 1046:r 1043:D 1025:( 962:( 939:( 904:m 901:a 898:e 895:r 892:D 853:( 828:( 788:( 770:( 731:( 713:( 670:( 635:( 597:( 582:( 568:( 544:( 484:( 445:( 412:( 387:/ 383:/ 379:/ 377:C 375:/ 373:T 371:( 350:P 345:A 340:T 337:⇒ 313:/ 309:/ 305:/ 303:C 301:/ 299:T 297:( 250:) 242:· 236:· 228:· 221:· 215:· 209:· 203:· 198:( 190:( 187:) 175:) 137:( 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter - Knowledge

Index