Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users

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

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

List of Twitter users (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

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

Please retract the "possibly millions" statement. Non-notable members of a list can be removed with normal editing. See below. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note See WP:N, WP:SPLIT, WP:DEL#CONTENT, WP:EDIT, WP:LIKELYVIOLATION.
  • No list and no article will ever be in danger of too much content. That is what the edit button is for WP:EDIT, WP:DEL#CONTENT.
  • There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the voters here about the nature of Wikipedia titles. No title ever means, "everything about this subject"; they always mean, everything WP:N Notable about this subject. Hence, WP:LISTNAME says, "Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article." The default for all articles is that the subject or subjects is/are notable, so notable in the title is not necessary.
  • "X celebrity on Twitter" articles are NOT "established"; no article is "safe" from deletion in any case, but as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter shows, consensus on this issue has yet to be established.
  • It is never a valid deletion argument to say that an article might be at some future time in violation of WP rules WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. This is a slippery slope logical fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - How is this article any more absurd than Lady Gaga on Twitter, Justin Bieber on Twitter, Rihanna on Twitter, or Barack Obama on Twitter? Without formally !voting yet, I would maintain that this list, a navigational aid, is equally worthy of inclusion (or deletion) as the rest of these articles. It would seem more proper to nominate them all as a class, rather than single out a navigational aid. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I know that other crap exists and all that, but we've had List of LiveJournal users for quite some time. I'm not terribly attached to this article, although one could make a reasonable argument that it meets our list criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless, of course, it was made obsolete by the deletion of all the linked articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • !voting Keep per Blofeld et al. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Typically, such lists are their own rationale. At least a couple of the entries have articles specifically on the Twitter accounts (as ridiculous as it is to have articles on peoples' Twitter accounts): it's not a list of Twitter users, it's a list of articles about the Twitter use by people (perhaps the original title captured that better). Note also the existence of Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts--if the one goes, so should the other. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Personally I'd rather the tables were expanded to contain note summaries rather than having individual articles on them all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Utterly brilliant. Then I would support keeping this, if we discard the rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep On condition that the existing articles are merged. I'd rename it List of most popular Twitter users.. Do I endorse this sort of content, absolutely not. But it would be the lesser of two evils and I suspect this is exactly what my evil fellow doctor is thinking.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Changed opinion I say Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "List of most popular" means some top 20-50? And we measure popularity by number of followers? Is that the plan? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • List of Twitter users with over 5 million followers..?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how this can be relevant for an encyclopedia. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not, but its the lesser of two evils. Deleting it doesn't solve the problem we have with the others..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Deleting should solve the problem. Why do we have to choose of the two? Kill all evils. Facebook has started verifying user now. Will we make "List of Facebook users" then based on how many subscribers they have? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Corralling problems are often more effective, as it provides a singular outlet for this fluff rather than a variety of articles that are individually even less notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The list stays only if the current column of notes stays is what you say. Or else it would just be a collection of links and we dont keep mere collections of internal links. The content in the notes column can be (and should be and probably is) included in popularity section of individual biographies. That makes more sense. Here its just a spicy gossip column where one can see which celebrity is "awesome". And frankly, most of the content would be deleted for being mere trivial. "The black and white image features Rihanna crouching against a wall and wearing punk clothes." Plus we shouldn't be surprised if this attracts SPAs to glorify their demigods. Also, if the article actually is about how Twitter is used by celebrities, it should go under a section "In celebrity circle" in Twitter usage. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
          • The addition of that content is what changed my mind, which is why I called it utterly brilliant. Before that, it had no sources. A name change might be in order, but it won't be the first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Okay! So adding the notes column has added value to the table. Thats correct. But what does the over all table have value in it? The enteries in it, i.e. the Twitter accounts are themselves not notable. They are talked about because their owners are notable. This information should hence belong to the respective biographies. If at all these tweets are a subject of study and commented upon by some parties, they would go in the article Twitter usage, as Twitter would then be the main subject. Do we keep "List of celebrities' pet animals" or "List of celebrities' bank accounts"? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per my above comment and on Dr. Blofeld's conditions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep WTF??? Keep with the condition that other articles not under discussion be merged here???? I repeat WTF??? List of top 10 or top 25 Twitter users would be manageable. Top 100 would even be O.K. How can you make conditional keeps about articles not under consideration. I don't know who will keep it up to date if there is a lot of numerical content. We need to discuss the format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You're making a bunch of odd conditions yourself. There is no need to limit to a certain number for reasons of manageability. The list is only limited by how many articles you and yours manage to produce on this "topic". BTW, I hope your first WTF was not directed at the nominator--or maybe that's your way of saying "Speedy keep" (but there is nothing out of line about this nomination). Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • HOLY WTF?? Now we are trying to by acclamation conditionally keep things if we merge articles that are nominated at WP:GAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tony, you are aware that the closing admin is free to ignore any conditions or comments, right? AFD isn't a binding contract, and conditions simply mean that an editor reserves the right to nominate the article themselves if the conditions aren't met, and vote in a different manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That an article is nominated for GA means, as you well know, nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • @Drmies, @TonyTheTiger: Justin Bieber on Twitter is not nominated for deletion. Whether or not this article is deleted, it has zero impact on the Bieber article. It's status at GA or not is irrelevant to this AFD. Notability is not inherited. --LauraHale (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOTDIR. I am disappointed by the number of folks using this discussion as an excuse for all sorts of "pointy" behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. Pointy behavior might have predated this discussion, but this discussion is actually constructive, in my opinion, and a valid alternative that honors WP:PRESERVE and addresses the shortcomings of a number of articles, while staying within the letter of policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete It would be the equivalent of having a list of facebook users. It's simply too big. An argument COULD be made for a list of people famous only because of twitter, but even that should be a category, not a list. Jeancey (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete An encyclopedia doesn't comment on social network activity. Lucasoutloud (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Says who? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Lucasoutloud, if you believe that, then you have half a dozen article to put up at AfD. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps rename/repurpose The topic as it currently stands, "List of Twitter users", is far too broad for an encyclopedic entry. "List of most followed Twitter users", or some similar alternative, is a good topic in theory, but the effort needed to constantly update and patrol it for accuracy would probably be beyond our capacity. I'd be willing to rename/repurpose this list to the latter title if I had evidence that the criteria for inclusion wouldn't be volatile. ThemFromSpace 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep although renaming after determining a clearly defined a scope is certainly a good idea (I had expanded it to the top 10, including AK at 18, as his account had an article). I think that maintaining the ranking on up to 20 users would be manageable. I had intended to include number of followers, but thought that would be a nightmare to maintain, and simple rankings would be easier, as that information is readily available and probably doesn't change that frequently. The list gives context to the existing @XXXXXX accounts that have articles, to show where they rank compared to each other.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposing to have a list of Top 20 Twitter accounts also means proposal of having Top 20 Facebook accounts, Top 20 Blogspot accounts, Top 20 Yahoo! Communities, etc. Then we will also have List of top 20 Most liked Youtube videos, List of top 20 most disliked youtube videos, List of top 20 most commented Youtube videos, List of most shared links on facebook, wow! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. I didn't suggest that we should turn this into a top 20 list, I said that a top 20 list would be manageable (i.e. not difficult to maintain). I also said that having a list in some for makes navigation and comparison of the articles about Twitter accounts easier (regardless of if you or I they should be here or not, it looks like they are here to stay in some form). I also said that there should be a clearly defined scope for the article, of which the top 20 is an option. Probably not the best option, but still an option. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • We don't make lists for ease of navigation unless they are basic topics where the structure of the subject is made clear... something which gives outline of the whole subject; e.g. Outline of literature. This is not the case here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • But there is scope here. No, it may not be the clearest atm (do we put notable accounts? top accounts? only accounts with articles? etc.) but we have the general concept and at this point that alone is not a valid reason to delete the article because of other policies. WP:NOTDIR says that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject", and so therefore lists function as our own directory system. WP:NOTDUP says that lists and categories are generally complementary, and since we have Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts I don't see how List of Twitter users is wrong. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - A change of scope may be necessary, but its doable. As visible in several of the twitter feeds with articles, there can be quite a bit of commentary on individual feeds. Personally, I'd rather have something like List of Twitter accounts — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: Topic is notable. Article needs improvement and possible name change but in this case, it deserves an article of its own, especially given the media coverage that explicitly compares different people and different accounts. Oppose out of process conditional merge proposals. If people want to merge other articles in, then this article will need to survive an AfD and then merge proposals can be put on those talk pages for those articles. Realistically though, I doubt that can happen because Justin Bieber on Twitter has so much information that WP:UNDUE would happen if the text was moved over. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Laura, you may be confused. It was never proposed that this list be merged. As for Bieber, that's incorrect: it has been proven to you by a few editors that that article could easily be condensed--but no one is discussing a merge here. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - As use of Twitter reaches near-universality, I look forward to new historical articles such as List of people who text, List of e-mail users, List of cell phone users, List of telephone users and List of automobile drivers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the existence of So-and-so on Twitter articles represents recentism and that those articles tend to be filled with trivia of no lasting significance. In other words, they don't belong in an encyclopedia. While some tweaking of the name and scope of this list might be needed, a merger of selected information from those Twitter account articles could be useful. I do not advocate copying the sum total of those articles here, an act which would indeed be ridiculous. LadyofShalott 02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Twitter has a Twitter account--does that not belong? ;) Drmies (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously unfinished article; I think this could possibly work well. With all the Blah on Twitter accounts showing up; a merge to this page would be the best way to show information that is notable, but not notable enough for a separate article. Rename to List of most popular Twitter users, or maybe List of notable Twitter users; probably the latter is better. I don't see how this is much different than List of YouTube personalities. I don't think it should be just a rank of the most followed though. Just notable accounts. — Statυs (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Good point, however notable Twitter users would be huge if one just followed the naming convention as inclusion criteria (how many Twitter users are notable? Lots. How many accounts are notable, not so many). I think Crisco's idea (List of Twitter accounts) is more suitable. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to redirect to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians; it is a much better article. Although I think that a new article shouldn't have been created, just this one updated. — Statυs (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and keep it strictly to twitter feeds/accounts which are notable enough to have articles written about them (ie there is coverage of the person/orgs' twitter feed). I would consider including periodic lists of the top 10 or 20 twitter accounts, maybe yearly, assuming that anyone is covering the stats released by twitter. I dont like the article length details attached to each name. all that material needs to be in the articles themself, with a brief mention here of, i dont know, why the feed is notable? some may be funny (steve martin and conan obrien, for instance, hope they have coverage and can get articles on their twitter accounts), some are, uh, well, celebrity and fame are, as Clive James has said, now based on a persons fame and celebrity, a recursive circle jerk o rama.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Please keep your delete/keep vote comments to 140 characters or less. Lugnuts (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice one! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Twitter is a culturally important site/medium receiving a vast amount of press interest, and a chart of leading twitter users is somewhat similar to having a chart of List of highest-grossing films, List of best-selling singles worldwide, List of best-selling books, Forbes Celebrity 100, etc. (Is a popular twitter feed any different from a popular book or film?) The list conforms to WP:L by presenting article links in a list format with additional information in a way that adds value (by permitting sorting). (Note: I'm not opposed to renaming or tightening criteria a bit.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Twitter apparently has over 140,000,000 users. Are we going to list them all? Dricherby (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • We have Lists of people yet it doesn't have 7 billion entries. "Notable" is always a requirement to be in any list. Seems a bit silly to even imply it would ever grow to 140m editors against all policies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Lists of people is a list of lists, not a list of people. There is no List of people (it is a redirect to the aforementioned list of lists). Dricherby (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • So you are saying you really believe this article will (or could) grow to have 140,000,000 entries then? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Sure! Why not? All one has to do is tweet and pass it on. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Touché Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Thurber-style. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Of course the article won't grow to 140,000,000 entries. But what are the inclusion criteria? Obviously, the person must be notable but all kinds of notable people use Twitter. As Beyond My Ken says above, we don't have List of cellphone users even though all kinds of notable people use cellphones. A next attempt might be to exclude people who are notable but not famous (academics, for example) and who just happen to use Twitter in the same way as ordinary people do, without being followed by large numbers of people with whom they're not personally acquainted (now define "famous", "ordinary", "large numbers" and so on). What about corporate accounts? What about pop stars who use Twitter for announcements and so on (which is essentially the same thing). Or is it just to be a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable (I guess Stephen Fry would count there, for example)? I realise that susceptibility to poor editing is not a reason for deletion but this is just going to descend into a quagmire of random famous people being added to the list on grounds that they have a Twitter account and, if we're lucky, a couple of citations to reliable sources that mention in passing that the person uses Twitter. I mentioned List of cellphone users; an even better and more direct comparison would be the absence of List of bloggers. Because blogs tend to be more substantive than Twitter feeds, many bloggers have become notable by frequent and reasonably in-depth media coverage (Andrew Breitbart would be the classic example); I suspect that few people are notable specifically for their use of Twitter. Dricherby (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Why no "List of cellphone users"? Because only who you call and the FBI, NSA, Homeland Security, etc know what you say on your cellphone, that's why. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No we don't have list of bloggers, but we have List of blogs. As this article is only a few days old (14 hours at the time of nomination) perhaps we should define a scope of it before deleting it for lack of scope. The only reason I expanded it to include the top ten was because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I do admit I have made at least one mistake in the past (I am married after all), so we can call this number two. Trim it to accounts that have pages, by all means, per WP:WTAF, but don't delete it because there are some red links in it. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) I believe your last suggestion ("a list of people whose use of Twitter is itself notable") is closest to the truth. Yes, it's a navigational aid, similar to a category as laid out by WP:CLN, but the core is the few people whose Twitter activity has spawned article and RS's. An arbitrary number (top twenty followed) might be an easy guideline, but those five or six X on Twitter articles is what makes this different from List of cellphone users (if Tom Cruise's cellphone is ever a bluelink, I'll create that list myself). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • The main point being: While the article may have defects, none are fatal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, reluctantly. It passes GNG and many other guidelines, while failing few, if any, decisively. It's like a 2012 version of "most read columnists" of yesteryear. Sickening, idiotic, but notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Forgot to say keep provided the article name and lead quite strictly define the scope. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note - see also related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter. LadyofShalott 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Having established the precedent of "X on Twitter" articles, there's no need for this one. If a celebrity's Twitter presence isn't notable enough to stand on its own as an article, we need not mention it beyond the person's own page. At a minimum, rename to List of notable Twitter users, as a truly comprehensive list of Twitter users is neither feasible nor desirable. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to List of notable Twitter users like BDD said. The current title is on a level misleading. I think that that is the most disturbing thing about it. There are twitter pages that have received reliable coverage in the media. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that the Manual of Style, at WP:LISTNAME, says to never use the word "notable" in the title. It is assumed they are notable if they are to be included in the list. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Changed my opinion. I think a merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians would be successful. | ^help_dןǝɥ | 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence that being on Twitter is an indication of notability for the celebrity, a mention on it's popularity with celebs should be mentioned on the Twitter page. Secret ^account 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to List of Twitter accounts, and restrict it to those which are actually notable and have articles (currently: Gaga, Bieber, Obama, Kutcher and Rihanna, though the last of those is up for deletion). Also, remove the 'Notes' section of the table, as it's basically redundant to the articles themselves. A simple list of articles is fine. Robofish (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As for the claims that 'but we'll have to include everyone with a Twitter account!' - no we don't, and we shouldn't. Just as List of YouTube personalities doesn't include every single YouTube account, only those notable enough to have their own articles. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • A list of personalities isn't the same as a list of people. Dricherby (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just seen Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, and my suggestion now is Redirect to that much better-developed article. Striking my comment above. Robofish (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment People are trying so desperately to get rid of Foo on Twitter pages that they are behaving non-sensically. The Notes column in this list article is being used in a way that works against the usefullnes of the page. The notes should be like Gaga: #1 in terms of twitter followers since August 2010, Bieber: #2 in twitter followers and rival to Gaga, Britney: #1 in Twitter followers from May 2010 to August 2010, first to 5 million followers, etc. Something short and sweet that is useful. Trying to cram full articles into the notes is not useful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My intention, after the completion of this AfD, is to trim the notes section so it doesn't look like an article was cut and pasted into a box. While I appreciate Dr. Blofeld's efforts, I do think I can improve on them. Maybe I will get a head start on it today. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per my Notes, TonyTheTiger and Colapeninsula et al, on the condition that the article does not get to be a problem in the future AND all reasonable means (such as RFC WP:Requests for Comment) are used to confront any such problems. I have no objections to renaming per se, but see no compelling suggestions here; eg, the difference between "user" and "account" is of no account. Anarchangel (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Views expressed above. Gawd! We might as well have List of people eating most number of Hamburgers. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • List of competitive eaters :/ LadyofShalott 12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I was going to look for more examples, then found List of lists of lists and my head exploded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:REQUEST List of Wikipedians whose heads exploded after reading list of lists of lists !! Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • WHATEVER! Treat my vote as I-dont-like-it case if you want to. I am not giving my views on it. Call them conservative if you need to. But these all are just rubbish. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree as to Twitter articles being rubbish and do not mean to diminish your vote in any way, but this one seems the lesser of the available evils and better than individual articles. If we can't eliminate problems, we coral them. And there are some proper sources, even if I wish they didn't exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)