Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2012 July 8
2012 July 10 >

9 July 2012

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Graham at NRB 1977.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File information page for a file on Commons consisting of a fair use rationale. Although local file information pages sometimes are allowed (e.g. for the {{badimage}} template), it seems totally inappropriate to have a local file information page on Wikipedia consisting of a fair use rationale. If the file is unfree, it should not be on Commons in the first place, and so Commons images shouldn't have fair use rationales. User:AnomieBOT closed the request by keeping the file information page on the grounds that the file is on Commons, but this seems irrelevant here. Since the bot doesn't allow the discussion to be held at the normal place, I'm taking it here instead. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Justin Bieber on Twitter – No consensus to overturn the closure. Both sides here are about evenly split in terms of strength of argument as to the validity of the closer, and I would guess (though I haven't checked) in numbers as well. For me to close this as either "overturn to NC" or "closure endorsed" would be a supervote, I think, so I'm going to just close this discussion as not having reached a consensus either way. I think that as per DRV norms, that means we let the original closure stand? – NW (Talk) 10:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Justin Bieber on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) AFD

The article was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO, which suggests the topic of the article is problem and it obviously does not belong on Wikipedia. Hence, deletion. At the same time, the closing administrator said the WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO could be included in the article. The closing administrator made content comments, citing the Charlie Sheen comments. Articles deletion are based on policies, not content. For example, an article with 1,000 reliable sources that establish notability will be kept even if only one of those appears in an article. Content is not a consideration. Admin does not appear to have given weight to sources that establish independent notability of the subject. given issues, WP:NOCONSENSUS seems obvious close. --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin comment; something which may be suitable for a paragraph in an article, may be unwanted as a stand-alone article topic. The personal life or the youth of many notable persons is the subject of a paragraph in their article, but wouldn't be suitable as a stand-alone article. I did not state that all the info in the deleted article could be included in the main Bieber article, only that "a short section" would be appropriate. That(s hardly claiming that the NOTDIARY content can be included in the article. As for the content comments; it was used as an example, together with the text of the note from the article, as to why it came close to being a WP:COATRACK; the article was enlarged and more sources added by discussing different topics and adding tangential stuff (even after the severe pruning halfway through the AfD), giving the appearance of having many sources when in reality there were less. This is similar to the lists of sources added in the AfD, which gave a false impression. However, even if the coatrack issues would have been adressed, the main reasons (NOTDIARY and IINFO), as indicated by most "delete" opinions, would remain, and hence my close. Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point out the WP:NOTDIARY part of your close? The article was NOT, despite the repeated claims at AfD, just tweet after tweet, after tweet. The sources provides in volume did not post content to meet WP:NOTDIARY as they were not 140 character article after 140 character article of his tweet. This deletion rationale doeesn't work. The sources didn't treat it that way? And WP:COATRACK was discussed a lot? It doesn't do that because there was not point of view pushing on the article. WP:IIST has no consensus that the article would meet here and the essay does not have consensus. There appeared to be no consensus around any of the rationale, and the rationale of not diary WAS made clear to be false based on sources AND article content. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as I mentioned (albeit obliquely) that whoever closed the AfD was going to be in for a tough time, since there were strong opinions on both sides, I think what Fram has done is a reasonable compromise that satisfies the majority of people. May I humbly suggest that sticks are now dropped. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. One of the least worthy articles on en.WP I've seen in quite a while. Lots of duplication with main article; elavates trivia. Tony (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either endorse or relist - "Keep" arguments are insufficient because they cite policies and guidelines as part of reasons. Some "Delete" arguments were not that compelling due to possibility that a policy may not apply. Nevertheless, "delete" arguments triumphs "keep" over possibility of massive trivia in this article, putting notability aside in favor of writing a content that would suit general needs, and favoring encyclopedic standards over existing rules. But if an uninvolved administrator feels that arguments are insufficient, go for "relisting". --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, I must say that people believe that whatever that is in the essay is not a very good argument. Nevertheless, some of short arguments have some merit, especially when they cite one policy or guideline without explaining further. In this case, we are talking about a Twitter use by one person. If a Twitter account is not a "work", as it supposed to be per WP:IINFO, what is it? (By the way, neither of us make a mention of it in AFDs.) --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - keep arguments insufficient, most are a complete misinterpretation of WP:N: sure, if for something no reliable references can be found, it is likely not notable, but that does not extrapolate to a situation that when for something reliable references can be found, that that subject is then by definition notable - the Sun is hot (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Grass is green (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the Sky is blue (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and Justin Bieber on Twitter (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - for most of the first 4 way more news, scholar and book-results can be found than for the last one - yet none of the first has an article. And the last one is just fancruft. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This was probably the least or second least worthy of the on Twitter articles, I'm not going to disagree with the admin decision. However, this evaluation of the arguments; this is essentially what arguements for deletion amounted to, a sort of Proof by assertion that the article is cruft, or trivia, or unencyclopedic; and then claiming that's proven right, only because WP:N doesn't prove them wrong. Accepting that the keep arguments are insufficient, and WP:N itself can't be an argument for notability/inclusion, what could be? What trumps someone calling something cruft? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An academic article or book which is focused to the topic for one. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Most celebrities have accounts on lots of social networks, and they use all kinds of ways to communicate (phone, mail, twitter, youtube, ping, whatsapp, skype etc.). Arcandam (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have probably closed it as merge, but Endorse - it's certainly a valid close within admin discretion. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Consensus was read that this is not the sort of thing we devote encyclopedia articles, it is high time to draw a firmer line against ephemeral pop culture trivia. If you want to tweet with Beiber, then go do so. We don't need to read about it here. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the decision. While opinions were divided, there appeared to be a consensus, arguments and all (well beyond "IDONTLIKEIT"), that deletion is the proper way to go. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The WP/N presumes notable topics may have thier own article. Thus setting the higher bar of actual consensus for WP:NOT to apply, (at least in cases where WP:NOT is ambiguous on the type of article at issue). For WP:IINFO to apply actual consensus must be reached, as nothing in the text of the section requires deletion of this article. As someone has said elsewhere, "this section is in no way a catch-all for anything that any editor may personally view as being indiscriminate" (See, The discrimination of. . .; See also WP:Burden). Indeed, the close admits the topic is notable for inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia. Under the Editing Policy an article is not indiscrminate nor is it WP:NOTDIARY, even were it arguable that it contains some such. (It is also false that this article listed every tweet and so it cannot be a diary). The deletion rationale and the endorse rationale relies on the logical fallacy of a parade of horribles. Other imaginary articles are irrelevant. Notable people, like other people, when thier lives intersect with something else notable make for articles (see, eg. Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln; Letters of Charles Lamb; at least one notable Twitter feed has its own article, Shit My Dad Says; as do notable Blogs.) Because this close forces consensus, it should be overturned. It also replaces objective application of policy with standardless feelings about the topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Typing Justin Bieber on Twitter redirects you to a few paragraphs on his Twitter presence on his article. I think this is more than enough. Canuck89 (have words with me) 15:47, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep I thought my argument summed it up rather well. I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other website. Its get ample coverage, not just for the activities of his on it, but for the twitter account itself. And getting "180 million page views per month" is fairly notable. Did those wishing to have it deleted just look at the title and make their decision, or did they actually read through the article? Dream Focus 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break 1
  • Overturn to keep:
    1) WP:IINFO does not cover twitter feeds. Contra the closing administrator's assertion, WP:IINFO is very specific about what is, in fact, indiscriminate. There has been a concerning tendency for deletionists to argue IINFO instead of IDONTLIKEIT, because the former is the actual name of a valid policy, while the latter is not. However, the extent of IINFO is limited to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, and excessive listing of statistics, none of which covers a twitter feed. The sentence "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." applies to each of these three sections, as well as every other numbered section on the page. Administrators are not free to invent new sections, for things that they believe might fit appropriately under one of the headings, especially not for things as ephemeral as indiscriminancy.
    2) The twitter of one person is not, by any rational definition of discriminancy, indiscriminate. It has a clearly delimiting category, the tweets of one person, and is therefore an encyclopedic intersection, as can be seen by RS'ed commentary ON Bieber's (and others') twitter feeds.
    While I think the topic is silly and inconsequential, it is neither my job, nor any administrator's, to sit in judgment on whether reliable sources are dealing with consequential topics. Unfortunately, by listening to the naysayers anddescribing content followed by RS publications in the categorization as "indiscriminate", the closing administrator has either inappropriately assigned weight to non-policy-based deletion rationales, or has himself supervoted to reach that conclusion. For all of those reasons, the above 'endorse' !voters miss the point, and the decision needs to be overturned. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do "endorse" people miss the point? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the point that IINFO doesn't apply isn't a widely-shared, point, though. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If IINFO doesn't apply, and it does not, then people misquoting it shouldn't be figured into an estimation of consensus, no matter how numerous, since its not a vote. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You keep saying "it doesn't", but that is only your opinion; many who weighed in feels that it does. Editors can disagree on interpretation of policy and not be "wrong", e.g. see the recent Muhammad RfC which pivoted on interpretation of censorship vs. offense. Each "side" felt their arguments were solidly rooted in policy, but one side didn't win that day. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jclemens: Doesn't your point apply to short "keep" arguments, as well? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well in that case (and this is why I would have closed as a Merge) they're in excellent company with the large number of evidence-free Keep votes along the lines of "it's notable", "it's got lots of sources", "it passes GNG", and "you just don't like it" ... and there are far more than 12 of those. In fact, you could probably remove 75% of the comments - on both sides - on this AfD and lose nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aside from something that would trigger NOT, as IINFO was erroneously assumed to do by the closer, then arguments about sourcing and notability would be the appropriate and prevailing arguments, wouldn't they? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's my point - most of those arguments don't consider whether this topic has the notability to stand alone - they merely assert "it's notable" without explaining why, or assert that "having lots of sources" is a criteria for notability. Clearly, neither is true. Obviously, notability is helped by significant sourcing, but its existence is not evidence of notability; it's the same as these "Personal life of Celebrity X" articles we've been having recently, they're spectacularly sourced because they're tabloid fodder, but it doesn't mean the information belongs anywhere else but as a section of that celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • What is evidence for notability, if, as you appear to say, it is not significant reliable sources? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I thought I made that clear. Something cannot be notable without significant reliable sources, but the existence of those sources does not mean something is notable. Otherwise we would have a new article (for example) every time a celebrity got married, had an affair, got arrested ... Black Kite (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That does seem clear, sources don't prove something is notable, I think the question is; what is positive evidence for notability/keeping, i.e, what does mean that something is notable? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You've said what it is not. What is evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Actually, BK, I think you're wrong: If a particular event, like a wedding, has GNG-level support, then an article on that event does meet our notability criteria for a separate article. After all, the contrapositive has been being used against fictional elements for years ("Delete it, since no sources cover this element outside the context of the movie"). Stretching IIFNO is inappropriate; if we want to have a NOTTWITTER, then by all means let's create one, rather than saying IINFO means "whatever the closer doesn't think encyclopedic". Twitter articles are not per se indiscriminate: they cover what one celebrity has said on twitter--that's very discrete and specific. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you know what I meant, though. A very notable wedding may possibly have a chance of passing notability (but beware WP:NOT#NEWS), but the point I was making is that you could display shitloads of sources for pretty much any celebrity wedding, because that's the nature of our media. Doesn't mean they need an article, though. And 99% wouldn't; they'd be a note in the relevant celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And, regarding the 1% that could have an article, how would you, in particular, distinguish them? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I wouldn't, because I couldn't care less about trivia articles. I was merely pointing out that I would not rule out 100% of articles of that type; there are always exceptions to the rule. And that's why we have AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This was a correct reading of policy and consensus. Jclemens' ultra-narrow reading of WP:IINFO above is inappropriate. IINFO is not bound by the three examples listed on WP:NOT. ThemFromSpace 19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. The article was drastically improved by fluffernutter in the course of the discussion, and there was no consensus to delete the improved article. The close appears to relate only to the original article as originally submitted: the closer's rationale does not match the actual article. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, I would also go for "relisting" because I still favor deletion in both here and there, regardless of condensation. Even after condensation, I don't see anything valuable in this article. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close definitely took into account the changed article, and the !votes cast after the change (which weren't significantly different from the ones before). Please don't claim things which aren't true. Note that both the Charlie Sheen issue, and the note that "This article is about both Bieber as a topic on Twitter and Bieber's use of Twitter", were included in the article version "revision of Justin Bieber on Twitter (as of 4 July 2012, at 23:39) by DGG". Fram (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Merge would have probably been a better reading, but this has essentially accomplished the same thing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close, strength of delete arguments considerably stronger than keep arguments, some of which are being repeated again here. The keep arguments are just as weak here as they were at the AFD.--Otterathome (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When one looks past the mere !votes (as Black Kite points out above) on both sides and judges the strength of the arguments, I think the closing admin did a fair job in determining consensus (although I read it as "merge", the result is the same).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per IINFO; the view that it should be read narrowly, is simply wrong. It is a statement of a concept that applies to a great many indiscriminate things that may not be specifically enumerated. Such strict constructionism interpretations are about seeking to neuter IINFO for indiscriminate inclusion purposes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original close. I believe the original close accurately interpreted the comparative merits of the delete and keep !votes, and made a fair determination that the consensus of policy-based !votes was to delete or merge (which amount to the same thing here.) Not that it matters too much, but I didn't vote in the original AfD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resigned endorse, though "merge" might have been more technically correct. I spent a lot of time and energy cleaning/rewriting the article in the hopes that it could be saved, and I think I did improve it...but the more I look at it, especially in light of the AfD arguments, the more I think the kernel I thought was there just wasn't enough. The topic of Bieber's Twitter use has coverage - notable coverage. But the fact that it has coverage doesn't mean it has to stand on its own as an article, and if we continued to trim off the "fat" of overly-detailed stuff in the article, we'd have ended up with little more than the few important sentences that ended up in Justin Bieber anyway. The bulk that fleshed it out to article size is mostly unneeded WP:NOTDIARY stuff that in a years' time will be very clearly unimportant (and I think that in a year we'll have a much clearer idea of what the really notable stuff was/is), even to those of us who had hopes for the article. I do think there's some stuff that was in the article that didn't make it through the merge and should have (and that Fram probably should have done the merge himself rather than leaving it for someone who wanted to save the content), and I'll probably take a look at that in the upcoming days to fix, but overall I endorse with sadness Fram's close for now (though I will not be at all surprised if within a few years we find ourselves recreating social-media articles like this because the weight of notability has finally gotten too much). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clearly no agreement for the article to be neither kept nor deleted. Statυs (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguments about content apply are compelling, and sometimes I don't follow WP:AADD. Notability matters less for fiction, just as notability matters less for a Twitter account of the high-profile celebrity. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was within admin discretion. That some coverage of this topic is appropriate at Justin Beiber does not mandate that this be kept (even as a redirect) in the absence of a consensus that it should be used in this form. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to some form or a merge close. The GFDL requires us to keep the attribution of the page intact since content was merged into the main article, so what we really need here is a "redirect and full protect" close to keep that intact. Fram, however, correctly determined consensus against this being an article. (Whether intended by the close or not, what has happened here is a Wikipedia:Merge and delete, and that essay explains why this is not a good thing.) Courcelles 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anything was merged from this article, so what happened here was a "delete and redirect", not a "merge and delete". Feel free to correct me on this though, but there certainly hasn't been any merge of info since the start of the AfD. Fram (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While a "delete and redirect" was what technically happened, I think semantically from a casual observer (which is what really matters IMHO) it was more like a "merge and delete". I'm also concerned that there seem to be a lot of people here treating this review as "AfD II - this time it's personal" and rehashing the same arguments we saw last week, rather than what I believe the review is for. Did those that are requesting an overturn take it up privately with the closing admin in the first instance? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was discussion during the AfD of information being moved back and forth between the articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fram, the partial merge occurred here, back in April. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. It would have been easier to find that if the merger had properly attributed this in the edit summary of course (but that is not your fault of course). How best to proceed? Undeleting the article (but with the redirect as current version of course), or moving the deleted history to a talk subpage of Justin Bieber? Fram (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I note that the merge was indicated at the JB talk page (not by the merger though), I could have found that if I had actually looked there of course ;-) Fram (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have now restored the page because of the merger (and the need to have the contributor history. This does not change my AfD close except on a technical level. Fram (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Article not notable independently of Bieber himself. pbp 04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: even though that's not the way I "voted" in the AfD, I think the closer has weighed the discussion well and arrived at the right conclusion. pablo 10:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse one of the main arguments put forward for deleting the page was WP:NOT, and that reason was the one cited in the closing statement. Very few keep !voters tried to address this argument in the discussion. Instead they focused on demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. Passing our notability guidelines does not mean that a topic should be included, or that we should presume that it should be included. It means that the topic cannot be deleted for being non-notable, which doesn't say anything about whether it should be deleted for any other reason, including WP:NOT. Hut 8.5 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears the problem lies in that the only standards suggested by WP:NOT are reasoning by analogy. There was substantive disagreement over the applicable analogies with reference to the sources given, and the text of the policy and article (whether it be mass commincation, or personal information, or publisher/publishing, or marketing or something else). Choosing among the differing substantive analogies is imposing consensus. Also doesn't passing GNG or the other notability guidelines lead to a presumption? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD was close under WP:NOTDIARY. A main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Twitter event Justin Bieber is involved in was notable: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are". Of course the keeps are going to focus on demonstrating that the Justin Bieber on Twitter subject passes WP:GNG per the requirements of WP:NOTDIARY. A second main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter article was an overdetailed article that look like a diary. The deletes failed to establish that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article look like a diary. So what was the basis to close the AfD discussion under WP:NOTDIARY? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of the word "notable" in WP:NOTDIARY is not meant to be interpreted as a reference to the standard of Wikipedia:Notability. Note that NOTDIARY goes on to say that "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person", which is exactly what the guideline WP:N is not applicable to. Rather the word is being used in its common English sense of "being worthy of notice". NOTDIARY is not an extension or application of the GNG, it's a completely separate standard. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Uzma's point is if it is not notable, according to NOTDIARY, it should not be noted in the Pedia but if it is agreed that it will be in an article, and further that it will have its own section of the article, it cannot be diary or indiscriminate because those are logically contradictory. If it's in the pedia, it is noted, and if it has its own section, it is discrete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break 2
  • Overturn to keep Laura's AfD contribution alone was sufficiently convincing to outweigh all the delete rationales. She provided a well presented table listing dozens of RSs that have both JB and social media as the primary topics. Her arguments on the applicability of policy were sound too. Taking into account the other keep rationales, and the obvious falsity of several of the delete comments, a delete decision should not have been an option. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The nominator cited a lack of notability as the reason for AfD, which was the reason that most keep arguments addressed this issue, and it was amply demonstrated that the article was well-sourced and passed WP:GNG. Anyone who said that it was a list of tweets never even bothered to look at the article. No evidence was ever presented that WP:NOTDIARY applied. But most disturbing of all was a bizarre extension of WP:IINFO to simply mean "not encyclopaedic" ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT whenever convenient. I would not normally bother to comment on a DRV, but I this interpretation poses a grave threat to the integrity of the encyclopaedia as it permits any article to be deleted on a whim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:IINFO: Before I get to my main point, let me address WP:IINFO. First, IINFO presently is limited to fiction, songs, and statistics, which are far from biographical information. The deletes did not establish that WP:IINFO applies because the collection of information on the topic can be focused on twitter and the deletes never established that the article only could be developed at random or without careful judgment. Our own LauraHale (the DRV OP) is an academic writing in this area, so the delete claim that the topic will always be an indiscriminate collection of information is wholly baseless. WP:NOTDIARY: While WP:NOTDIARY is relevant, it only states that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. Even after the AfD, Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article ((Justin Bieber#Twitter), and the keeps argument that Twitter is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person was strong and not rebutted. The AfD closer himself noted that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography per WP:NOTDIARY, the only remaining issue was article spinout. NPOV and NOTPAPER: Both WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOTPAPER are the policies that govern article spinout. Under WP:NPOVFACT, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. Under WP:NOTPAPER, splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. The AfD failed to adequately address these points and failed to do so objectively (which is a basis for relisting with directions to consider article spinout policy and guideline). CLOSE ERRORS: As a result, the AfD closer relied on the subjective beliefs and opinion of the deletes to justify the close, instead of basing the close on an objective standard. The AfD close erred in not addressing whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic was a valid article spinout. The AfD close erred in focusing on all verifiable events of Justin Bieber on Twitter rather than whether coverage in reliable sources on the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic could be limited to justify a stand-alone article. The deletes did not establish that clean up was not possible. The deletes did not establish that the topic was a COATRACK - Justin Bieber on Twitter is not a biased subject and the coverage in the Justin Bieber on Twitter article clearly was directly related to Justin Bieber on Twitter. The coatrack part of the AfD close was not justified by the discussion. In addition, the deletes did not establish that a brief summary of Justin Bieber on Twitter in the Justin Bieber main article would be sufficient as thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As such, the AfD close avoided the issue if whether a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is adequate and instead merely concluded that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. In view of this, overturn. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography"; Notability and due weight in an article are not the same thing, as such it is not a strong argument. Having a section in an article does not mean a topic is notable. You also inadvertently say the opposite of what you intend, You say that twitter is notable enough for content in the article, twitter wasn't at AfD. Further, WP:NOTPAPER does not mean that the individual splits do not need to be notable, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD was closed based on WP:NOTDIARY, which reads "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so consensus has concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. The AfD closer indicated that Twitter should have its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so the AfD closer concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. Even with that, WP:NOTDIARY was an insufficient basis to determine what should be done per WP:NOTPAPER as were the other reasons given in the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I don't see it. Notability just is not the right concept for determining whether something gets a section in an article, read WP:N: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.". Nothing in the closers statement indicates that he thought the topic was notable. Due Weight != Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IINFO is not limited to fiction, songs, and statistics. Those are examples of areas where the policy applies. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are those examples in the policy? And are you saying the policy is unbounded? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The principle of WP:IINFO is that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That principle is generally applicable, and is certainly not limited to three areas. As an illustration of this, the lead of WP:N makes it clear that our notability guideline is intended as a (partial) implementation of this principle, and our notability guideline is certainly not limited in scope. The three examples are in the policy to clarify how the principle is to be applied to some commonly occurring cases. Hut 8.5 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My concern is for article creators. How do they know if the article they have sources for is indiscriminate or not, if the topic and article they want to write does not look like the examples? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well obviously a decision like that would be down to editorial judgement. We have plenty of policies which don't spell out exactly how they are to be interpreted in all possible cases. Hut 8.5 20:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for discussing. It would seem to be fairer and a better system to guide editorial judgement, or it seems no judgement at all, but fancy or whim. But I think I have led us far enough astray from why we are here. For which I apologize. Again thanks for discussing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The strength of the delete arguments was greater than the keep arguments, as summed up by the closer: "Once someone or something gets sufficiently notable (like Justin Bieber), many subaspects, minutiae and trivia of his work or life get excessive attention". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with a strong ordinary-editor opinion to redirect. The AfD debate (and apparently the closure) failed to consider the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The edit history of the page and of the latest redirect target strongly suggest that content was moved from this page to other pages. Not all of it, of course, but enough that we should have kept the pagehistory. This was clearly a difficult close and I applaud Fram for taking it on. I agree that the AfD reached a general consensus that the content does not belong on Wikipedia in the then-current level of detail. I do not, however, see consensus that the article's pagehistory had to be deleted. When considering the various "merge" opinions as flavors of keep (though not keep-as-is), the closest I can get to is a no-consensus decision. Rossami (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the page history has been undeleted for that reason (I had missed this aspect, which indeed wasn't discussed at the AfD, but it was brought to my attention by other editors in this DRV). You may call the current result a soft-deletion; while the history is still visible for licensing / attribution reasons, the consensus (or my close) was that Wikipedia shouldn't have a separate article on this subject, which means that this redirect shouldn't be reverted to the article as it was without proper discussion (like we are having here). This is different from a regular WP:BOLD redirection, which may be overturned by anyone at any time in general. Fram (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Guys, its time to drop your sticks. Fram made a good decision and explained it very clearly. Most people who voted delete at the AfD aren't interested in this article enough to know it is at DRV and/or they don't want to be a part of the drama that is inevitable when some people don't get their way. But still a majority endorsed the decision here. Arcandam (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it was closed on the correct basis, wherein the discussion should be analysed in accordance with the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia's policies rather than guidelines. Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. However, like the admin pointed out, a section on the Justin Bieber article is perfectly fine. Till 16:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. This is the reason the IINFO overreach must be eliminated--if any closer says "well, it's indiscriminate, so even though IINFO doesn't say anything about it, I find that it's IINFO and must be deleted per policy even though it's notable (which is just a guideline anyways)." This is not about Justin Bieber or Twitter, but about the fundamental rules for inclusion and exclusion on Wikipedia. Otherwise perfectly good editors are endorsing a horrible, horrible deletion rationale because they don't like this one topic (and neither do I, of course), but one that gives essentially any admin carte blanche to rewrite anything they don't like into NOT, and make it policy by default. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per devastating rebuttals by Jclemens, Uzma Gamal and Alanscottwalker. When the invalid delete !votes are thrown out, the sources and meeting the GNG win the day. CallawayRox (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny; I don't particularly feel devastated. A lot of editors have a different opinion when it comes to interpretation of policy and guidelines, it happens all the time. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you honestly believe we are going to throw our policy and the majority of the comments out of the window just because you disagree with them and call them invalid? Would you be so kind to link the rebuttals here? My devastating rebuttal to them is probably WP:IDHT and WP:DROP. Arcandam (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) CallawayRox (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I and others disagree with Clemens' conclusion of the non-applicability of IINFO, though. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What part of WP:IINFO do you believe does apply to this? It has three parts. Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. Was the article one of those? If not, how would it possibly apply? Dream Focus 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Probably the part that isn't limited to those 3 examples, the one that speaks to the general concept of the indiscriminate inclusion of topics, as noted on the Wikipedia:Notability intro. I think that intro is worth a re-read, particularly the "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." From discussions at the Village Pump to the prevailing sentiment at the AfD, it seems that a significant number of editors have opined that this is not something that we want on the project. We (the royal we) are well within our remit to determine what is and what is not "worthy of notice". And you and Clemens cannot simply bludgeon those that feel that way into silence. Guidelines can and will be bent if a majority of editors feel it is to the betterment of the project. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You don't like it, and don't think it should be on Wikipedia, understood. But don't go claiming a guideline supports you here when it doesn't. Do you accept that nothing in WP:IINFO applies here then? That claim is thus an invalid reason to have deleted the article. As for the part in Notability, that doesn't apply here, since this isn't about merging anything, its about deleting something people don't like. Dream Focus 02:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Don't take what I said and lie about it, please. Collecting what a famous person said on the internet via one particular website (twitter.com) is an indiscriminate collection of information, a collection unworthy of notice. IINFO and WP:N apply; we should not collect random bits of news and slap them together into a "famous person said things via X" article. Simple as that. So far, you have merely offered your own interpretation of IINFO and such. being different isn't wrong. Being different is insufficient grounds to overturn an XfD. Therefore, you have no case to make here, per usual. Q.E.D. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn too many of deletion rationales are about the general inappropriateness of the topic, rather than specific problems with this particular article. Although it is probably the case that few of them meet the threshold of independent notability, it doesn't make any sense to say "Twitter accounts are inherently unencyclopedic", any more than "blogs are inherently unencyclopedic" or "schools are inherently unencyclopedic". If policy allows such prima facie judgments about article topics (and I don't think it does, beyond some feeling that Twitter is "trivial") it needs to be changed. 169.231.121.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.121.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Overturn with a strong recommendation to make the merge and redirect official even if the overturn fails. WP:NOTDIARY cannot be used as a deletion rationale for any article with valid sources. If there is a properly used source, it must have at least one statement that is not "excessive detail", per our official policy on experts (even celebrity experts) and published material. If a reliable source got something published, they must have printed something relevant/notable. Even if the article can be distilled down to just 2 or 3 sentences, that is not a reason to delete - we have lots of stubs. If not, then the article has a sourcing problem, not a problem with excessive detail. In that case, "no reliable sources", or "only trivial mentions" would be your correct deletion reason. This was not the case here, and not even one person suggested that all the sources for this article had a problem with excessive detail. Thus, any delete rationale based on NOTDIARY is incorrect. However, NOTDIARY/excessive detail is a good reason to merge, which is why I would accept an official re-jigger to merge and redirect (I know that it's technically one already).  The Steve  23:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple contrast between policy and guidelines is not sufficient to solve conflicts. The various parts of the many Wikipedia guidelines and policies have varying degrees of strength and consensus, and every one of them requires interpretation. It requires judgment. The judgement is made by the community, not the admin, though the admin is expected to interpret what the community thinks and if necessary evaluate the arguments in order to make that interpretation. If the community disagrees with the admin's interpretation with respect to a deletion, they can reverse it at Deletion review. Though we give considerable respect to the admin's discretion, how much respect we give it depends on the circumstances, and here is where we decide. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break 3
  • Overturn (Redirect to Justin_Bieber#Twitter) (i.e. today's status quo). The discussion had inadequate attention to this compromise with too many taking extreme straight keep or delete opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse The arguments for overturn read as a rehash of the original keep arguments in the AfD discussion,WP:IDHT and/or WP:LIKE and are thus not valid reasons to restore the article. The closing admin did an excellent job of summing up the weight of opinion and evaluating the arguments given and there has simply not been any compelling reason given to overturn. This is not the place to keep beating the WP:STICK. Unless those who want to restore the article can come up with some new arguments that are convincing, it is time to just drop it. - Nick Thorne talk 04:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This horse is dead
    This horse has officially been declared dead. Those who wish to attend the funeral should contact the family for details. Repetition is boring. Repetition is boring. Repetition is boring. Arcandam (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's done it again
    Oh now look what's happened. Jimbo has got so fed up with this argument about notability spilling over to the deletion review that he's gone and climbed the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman to illustrate his point again. You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jclemens's position deserves close attention. Not one endorser has explained how WP:IINFO applied to the article - except by claiming it can be "generally applicable". This seems equivalent to denying Jclemens's statement that WP:IINFO is restricted to the delimitated sub classes like 'Lyrics databases' and 'Summary only' , saying instead that it can broadly apply to anything delete voters subjectively consider unencyclopaedic. If this is endorsed, it has two important consequences. 1) AfDs where WP:IINFO is invoked will devolve into vote counts. Keep voters will only be able to counter delete votes by offering the opposite opinion. If the applicability of WP:IINFO is purely a matter of subjective opinion, then how can closers distinguish strong arguments from weak, aside from counting votes? 2) It means that with sufficient numbers, deletionists can use WP:IINFO to destroy any article they dont like, even if it has abundant quality sources and GA status. Lets not be hasty, this could be a very consequential discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here, here! CallawayRox (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a straw man argument. Almost all policies and guidelines require some element of editorial judgement to enforce. The notion of hordes of "deletionists" "destroying" articles they don't like citing WP:IINFO is no more realistic than a similar horde "destroying" an article by citing WP:N or any other inclusion rule we have. On the other hand insisting that the principle "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" doesn't apply outside summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases and statistics would mean that any verifiable information outside these topics, no matter how trivial or unencyclopedic, is suitable for inclusion. Furthermore, as I noted above, WP:N is in fact meant to be an application of WP:IINFO, so restricting IINFO to these topic areas would render our notability guidelines virtually meaningless. Hut 8.5 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's be clear here: I have zero problem with the community (vs one lone administrator) deciding to add WP:NOT#TWITTER, nor with filing it as a fourth section under WP:IINFO. I do not believe that the process to add IINFO criteria should simply be part of a deletion discussion, but should rather stem from the VPP discussion. I don't disagree with the outcome, but with the potential that this has derail the GNG by subjective decision of any closing administrator. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The fact that WP:IINFO lists three common examples in the explanation of what is an "indiscriminate collection of information" does not and never has meant that it was an exhaustive list. With one exception, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. (That exception is WP:CSD which is designed as an exhaustive and narrowly prescriptive list.) It would be impossible to identify ahead of time all possible examples of "indiscriminate information" and absurd to try. Nothing can be inferred from the fact that any particular example is absent from the page. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Descriptive means it describes what the policy covers. Your comment is simply going overboard in another direction and means the words used in policy don't mean anything. Those points and words are there in policy because they have consensus, anything not specifically covered still has to be decided with reference to the words actually used in the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • It means that written policy describes the practice, it doesn't prescribe the practice. i.e. the practice comes first then we describe it. Policy is set by the community as a whole's understanding and what they actually do. If the policy page says one thing, but everyone does something else, it's the policy page which is wrong. If that's the case here I guess is a matter of perspective. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • And what the community understands it has agreed to is in the policy. IAR is always an option but forcing a consensus, which is not established by the words of policy is not within administrative competence or power. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nope, as policy develops before it is describe there is always the prospect that the policy is outdated. Similarly policy develops and then people spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about how to describe it, again the policy page isn't always reflective. There are many such examples. IAR as the fifth pillar you mention, Not a Bureaucracy is another statement of this, the precise written nature is less important than the intent. I'm sure there also used to be one about WP is not an exercise in rule making. Realistically I'd agree with Hut 8.5, notability is our implementation of WP:IINFO, and it's in guideline form. WP:N already covers the situation here - "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.", or from the WP:GNG section ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. " (my emphasis). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As an example consider the state of CSD G4, due to a change in wording of CSD overall the literal reading of CSD meant that items couldn't be speedied if they'd ever been kept as part of a deletion discussion, so if kept once it could be then be deleted 1000 more times through AFD and the literal meaning meant that CSD G4 couldn't apply. Most people I know of knew (a) the original meaning and (b)the plain intent of G4, at some point someone decided that they'd argue against the plain meaning and so the bureaucratic process ensued which reworded it to mean what it had always meant. In reality the policy never changed, most admins worked within the plain meaning and eventually the mistake in the description got fixed. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Consensus may do anything. But consensus is reflected in policy. The issue is here is whether consensus was reached, which it was not, not within policy mandate, given the presumption which must be given, as you quote above. And the words you quote discusses a merge of topic not a mandate for deletion and the words of IINFO don't mandate the delete either, whereas it does mandate delete for other topics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I think we're getting a long way off track. The section I quote says nothing about merging, that's your construction. I'd argue per the descriptive not prescriptive thing, a normal interpretation would the material may be used elsewhere, though usually in less detail (if that involves merging or not is a different matter), but if you want to take things really literally as others apparently do, it doesn't prescribe anything beyond not being suitable for a stand alone article. At this point I'm not quite sure what you're arguing about, the outcome was that it didn't warrant a standalone article and was referred to a section in the main article, which it appears you are saying is a reasonable outcome per WP:GNG? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hut8.5 - for practical purposes the notability guidelines derive their meaning mainly from a clearly defined and objective test: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Editorial judgement comes into only for borderline cases, though granted a rather wide border due to differences in perception. Granted, it would be unrealistic to argue deletionists could use an unbounded WP:IINFO to destroy undeniably traditional encyclopaedic topics like Calculus or Paris. But hundreds of thousands of interesting and valuable popular culture articles would be at risk, simply because of deletionists subjectively decide they're not on topics which a "discriminating" person would consider encyclopaedic. As per the Bieber article, an unbounded WP:IINFO could mean dozens of quality sources and the loving care it takes to elevate an article to GA status would count for naught at AfD. Its enough to give a chap nightmares. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • While IINFO as written indeed is not exhaustive, it also shouldn't be considered inexhaustible. The idea 'if people say it's indiscriminate, then it is' alone is enough to render notability guidelines meaningless, as Hut fears, because IINFO as written already supersedes notability and verifiability. It is both a trump card and entirely unbounded; one or the other of those is fine, but both is not. Mind you, I'm still not voting to overturn here because right now, the policy is what it is, and this isn't the place to change it, nor is it AfD II: The Reckoning; but perhaps we can all agree IINFO is worth discussing? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you may misperceive some of the arguments to overturn. IINFO cannot be unbounded otherwise there is virtually no point in writing almost all the words in it and just calling any topic you don't approve of "indiscriminate." The consensus was that the article did not fall within the actual categories of the policy. (And that the article was well sourced.) Thus, the only way to apply IINFO with reason is by analogy to what it categorizes. But in the AfD, there was substantial reasoned disagreement over the proper analogies to apply and thus no consensus. Choosing among the competing substantial reasoned analogies is not within the power of the closer because they do not get to put their thumb on the scale (force consensus/supervote). There is also the overturn rationale concerning merge -- if the closer enacted a merge than that is what the close should be. The topic cannot be both worthy of merge (and, indeed its own discrete article topic section in the pedia) and absolutely excluded as diary, let alone indiscriminate diary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, I should be more specific; Overturn to No consensus could be reasonable, but by what you say, Overturn to Keep would be equally an application of a particular person's judgement of which arguments are legitimate. Overturn to Merge and Redirect is, at this point, a bureaucratic distinction. As for No Consensus, that just implies relist, which will lead to the same thing we had before. While limiting IINFO to things which could reasonably be related to the given examples by some kind of analogy would be reasonable (in fact, I have a few ideas of just such an analogy myself...), that's not -in- the policy in any way, and an admin using that reasoning to close keep would be just as much in violation of their position, it seems. So unless an admin that swings the other way happens to close, I don't thing doing it again with the same policy and the same article could lead to a different AfD. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No consensus means a no consensus keep nor delete; because the consensus and editing policies encourage article development, the article remains with a note to no consensus AfD on its talk page (it is usual to hold off on a new AfD for some months, by which time a consensus hopefully may be reached - views/policy/articles do evolve). Whereas, a merge overturn makes explicit what happened to transparently inform the community in their future consensus making. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Darryl: See also, TParis close decision in the Obama on Twitter article, Here, for what can happen in cases of no consensus: "The result of this discussion is no consensus with the option to hold a discussion or RFC to merge." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
How much the press covers something is certainly relevant to consider. Do you live in opposite world, George? Or do you want JB all to yourself??![3]--Milowent • hasspoken 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is quantity of press coverage relevant? Anyway, I'll rephrase: the fact that Bieber gets more coverage than Obama is nothing compared to coverage of Twitter use. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though. Comparing the most powerful man in the world to a random celebrity isn't the point, not to mention that the !vote weightings were vastly different. Apples and oranges. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think these twitter articles are all stupid. But saying Obama is different is no solution. Would David Cameron on Twitter be acceptable because we deem him subjectively worthy? Will every POV warrior from southeastern Europe and the Middle East then get to clamor for their own leaders' twitters, and the Turks and Armenians can AfD war over eachother and all that fun stuff? The Obama close is well done because it admits the reality of the lack of consensus and that we would prefer a blanket rule to cover the X on Twitter situation.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were favoring Twitter articles when I read your posts. I guess I concur with you about them. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, that close actually noted the amount of opposition to such a blanket approach... Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it did, that's why it was closed no consensus instead of a delete with an unsatisfying rationale.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, and this is where we correct such error in consensus making -- feelings about the topic don't make for consensus because closers have no competence or authority to endorse, reject, choose, or evaluate them, and neither do other users. And if we go with feelings to guide us it will damage not only the projects content with unfathomable anomaly, its ability, and the ability of editors to function together will be damaged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; I've read through the AFD (jesus!) as if closing it myself and agree with the view of the closing admin that the strongest arguments are those !voting delete. The keep !voters relied heavily on WP:NOTE (which is acceptable) but did not appear to be able to support that argument properly with an outright example of significant coverage (i.e. from a single source). With this line of reasoning undermined the delete !votes have stronger sway (although both "sides" suffered from I Like/Don't Like it style arguments). This AFD really comes down to where we draw the line on coverage of topics; in some ways it is a part of the ongoing "dispute" over articles which collate two topics. The community obviously feels very strongly about the topic in general - but the delete arguments here just about hold sway. I find the admins closure of the discussion proper. --Errant (chat!) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find your definition of significant coverage (i.e. from a single source) and if you were closing what would you cite to for that? Don't the definitions in WP:GNG directly contradict your reasoning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's the critical underpinning of Notability; we require sources that cover the topic in significant detail. During the AFD no one highlighted particular sources that gave significant coverage to the topic as a whole. There was an effort to provide a lot of sources each covering portions of the article contents, but the level of coverage in each didn't seem sufficient. --Errant (chat!) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you cannot find your singular definition in there. Did you look at the sources and whether they accurately reflected what was stated about them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make sense of what you are saying there (maybe try again). But as I already noted I checked through the sources. Did you read the sources in detail? --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said "significant coverage (i.e. from a single source)." ie. means "that is" or "in other words." So you said significant coverage is defined by single source. But perhaps you meant eg.? Yes, I read the sources all the way through, and I could not find misrepresentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ie. means; umm, you've quoted only a portion of what I said; did not appear to be able to support that argument properly with an outright example of significant coverage. It's a very basic concept, and as I explained the first time - notability requires at least one source which covers the topic in a significant way. The sources provided had a number of mentions of the topic, but nothing you could pick out as notability-level significance. I'm not sure what you meant by "misrepresentation"; a number of sources were provided, but none of the keep voters appear to have taken the crucial step in identifying (and explaining) at least one with significant coverage. All of this is notability 101. --Errant (chat!) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how or where there was consensus in that AfD that the article authors did not bring forth "significant coverage" (as defined in the GNG) that mentioned the topic -- and provided detail on information of note about the topic -- but I guess we will have to disagree on that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the initial comment above because you have misunderstood it.The editor is stating that the lack of sources shown at the AfD that demonstrates significant coverage weakens the core keep argument, namely that it passes GNG. Consensus is not just a vote count, arguments are weighed up in reference to policies and guidelines. If someone makes a bad argument, it doesn't become more valid because lots of people have said it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest a vote count. 1) Are there mentions in sources of the topic? Yes, according to the close. 2. Are there cohesive pedia worthy substantive details of note in those sources? There are, according to the close. Should this be its own article? Hard delete changed to a soft delete merge history (not mentioned in the close). If admins are (soft) deleting for failure to meet GNG, but not saying that or explaining why that is so (and instead citing WP:NOT) than it cannot be a valid reason for the close. Like others I am troubled by the process and what the rationale means concerning NOT, regardless of the fate of this article. I am now further troubled by the failure to cite GNG in the close instead -- if what ErrantX surmises is the real reason for the close. Authors, editors, and deletion reviewers should be clearly and fully informed by delete closes, based on which policy and guideline they explicitly rely upon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Break 4
  • Overturn to no consensus, though I have no opposition to the status quo merge. Ignoring the blatantly invalid votes, quite a few of the stronger delete votes were actually "delete and merge" either explicitly or implicitly (arguments about it not having independent notability), which would default to merge in this case as there was no compelling reason to delete the page history. When merge is considered as one of the prominent positions, the argument more or less comes down to whether there was sufficient quality material for a spinoff where I believe there was less clear consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn per Jclemens, Uzma Gamal and Devil's Advocate above. The sourcing is strong enough, there's no compelling reason to delete to override a lack of consensus. I suspect that the fact that the topic is widely considered inane or stupid should may be influencing some of the response, but stupidity and inanity are not reasons for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But shouldn't they be? If we all agree the topic is inane (which I don't think is the case here, but bear with me) shouldn't we not have an article on it? The classic example is "Michelle Obama's Arms" where we we had strong consensus that it met the GNG and NOT but we deleted it anyways basically because it was an inane topic. I think that's a good thing. Sadly there doesn't appear to be consensus that this topic is inane and I recognize my bias with respect to celebrity coverage in the media (I seriously think it's harmful to society) so I'm arguing to overturn even though I'd invoke WP:IAR in a !vote to delete it (had I !voted). Hobit (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, with useful content merged elsewhere. After reading the AfD and the last revision of the article, I conclude with the close. Most of the article honestly seems to be trying to synthesize notability for the concept of "Justin Bieber on Twitter" out of a hodgepodge of trivia, big numbers, and isolated incidents which are really more properly related to other subjects. I think selective merges to Justin Bieber as well as other articles about celebrity influence would be more appropriate. This was expressed by a number of editors at the AfD and I don't feel that the keep !voters addressed this. I think this article may have been sunk by trying to be too many things to too many people- I had to read the footnote linked at the top twice to actually parse what it was trying to say. There might have been a legitimate subject here but large swathes of the article are just trivia (as I mentioned before,) and I feel what content is useful would be more appropriately homed elsewhere.

    My endorse is weak as I have not yet found the incredible hidden mountain of time necessary to read the entirety of this DRV. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It can be reasonably argued that the close reflected the consensus in the discussion, especially after discounting poor, invalid or dishonest comments. The evaluation of such is the sole purpose of DRV, so we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you make that argument? I've read all of the above, and I'm not seeing it. It seems clear this meets the GNG (I don't see any significant arguments otherwise) and I'm not seeing how a narrow reading of WP:NOT would prevent the article's existence. As it would seem to require either a very broad reading of WP:NOT or of WP:IAR, I don't see how a delete result is possible here given the numbers and arguments. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick. Overturn to NC. However much I think we shouldn't have articles like this, there was no consensus in this debate. The delete arguments stretch "Excessive listings of statistics" to a breaking point. The right way forward is the RfC. Simply put, our policies (WP:NOT in particular) don't address this type of topic. As a rabid anti-celeb person I'd have hoped we'd end up without this type of article and that WP:IAR would be enough to delete it. But IAR requires a clean consensus and that we clearly lack. So let the RfC make the call on the general and keep this around for now. Sorry Fram, but however much I like the outcome, that wasn't a close that reflected the discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - WP:articles for deletion/Lady Gaga on Twitter is closed as merged into Lady Gaga. --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my memory, and screen, are not big enough. I thought that is what we were discussing. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened in a totally different article isn't relevant here at all. The other article didn't have multiple news media commenting on the twitter account itself, and its popularity, etc. That's why I didn't bother participating in that discussion. Different situation here. Dream Focus 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, while I respect the closing admin for being willing to stick their neck out like that, there clearly was no consensus to take any action in that discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_9&oldid=1144421307"