Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users

1720:

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

1466:, 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 1764:. 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 249:. 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 Knowledge 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. 2564:: Now what the hell is this? We discuss deletion of this list. After this has started, many other "twitter of XYZ" go for AfD. Then someone starts a completely new article which is nothing but same stuff without table and same stuff from individual articles. Why do you wanna keep writing same and same on so many articles? This all my-twitter-account-is-awesome is also present on individual biographies. §§ 1652: 2710:. There is no reason to be calling people "dimwitted" or "lazy". Second, either I've misunderstood what you wrote or your criticism of another editor's failure "to conform with our copyright license" when copy-pasting material from one Knowledge page to another is misplaced. All material uploaded to Knowledge is available under the same license. 2582:, it is obvious it was a copy/paste of this article. It even included the AFD tag, which is worrisome. It would have been better if Uncle G has just worked on this article instead of copy/pasting it to create his own version of the same thing. If anything, that article is a clone of this article, and should be merged into THIS one. 2985:

this topic is better expressed in prose form over a table with a name that practically invites every two-bit comedian to add themselves. Now, Animesh, I agree with you that these articles are not the best (to put it diplomatically) and are getting spread all over the place, but if we can create a clear central location for

673:. 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. 2053:, 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. 2431:

to grow beyond the few people (celebrities and politicians) who have articles about their use of Twitter...so it seems logical to have the info about their use of Twitter in an article about the use of Twitter by celebs and politicians. We certainly don't need both articles; they are pretty redundant

1080:

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

787:

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

464:

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

2903:

You unnecessarily read too much between the lines Uncle G. Rudely questioning my intelligence doesn't make your assumptions correct nor does it diminish the validity of my concerns. The whole way this was done is indeed "worrisome", and as others have pointed out, confusing the issue. And I don't

2878:

Following this: I do not like what you did and have ZERO idea what to do regarding my own "vote" because this is very convoluted. I might favour a redirect from one to the other but having done that at the 11th hour, I wouldn't even begin to know how to express an opinion to say that. The addition

1719:

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

1239:

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

2783:

I've already explained two very good reasons why it was done this way. If you've never encountered situations where we have multiple alternate drafts of an article going in divergent directions, with a choice to have one, the other, or indeed neither of them, then you've not experienced everything

2741:

Uncle G, it really doesn't require that I'm lazy or dimwitted to come to my conclusion. Adding an article this late in the game for what seems is to intentionally put it at AFD isn't really such a good idea since most of the votes were already in. I would have just boldly changed the first article

2133:

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

2984:

In my mind, the issue is scope. "List of Twitter users" is a heckuva lot different than "Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians", and boundaries are better expressed with the defining "Use of...by..." Yes, I saw the first edit (heck, a redirect alone would work without a merge), but I think

2930:

thought it was worrisome. Others saw the very clear explanation, considered, and changed their minds on the issue at hand, without any expressions of worry, and without even being confused by Dr. Blofeld messing around removing an AFD notice. ☺ There is, and was, nothing worrisome here, and the

2847:

discussion. (I added the alternative a mere 48 hours into it. It wasn't even a last-minute addition from patrolling the tail end of AFD.) AFD is not, and is never meant to be, a process where a handful of drive-by voters comment within the first few hours, and then nothing happens for six and a

1136:

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

820:

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

720:

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

2854:

You are welcome, if you think that it is needed, to go to the user talk pages of any of the editors who haven't yet altered their opinions and ask them simply to revisit the discussion, if you want to. That's normal AFD practice, too. But closing administrators know to take into account changes

2813:

No, it's not an unusual practice butt adding the other article to the AfD after the vast majority of !votes have been cast certainly is. There's an entire section of commenters who have not seen the new article at all; do their !votes just get disregarded? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but are you

1053:

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

2337:

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

1081:

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.--

871:

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.

2724:

There's a third choice: You haven't misunderstood the criticism, it's not mis-placed, and what was done was indeed not correct. There's a hyperlink to the page that explains what's necessary per the copyright licence, above, already given. Follow that hyperlink and read it.

2742:

and moved or proposed a move instead of creating a second article. The format is better on your article, I agree with that, but the process of how we got here is a bit unnecessarily sloppy. I guess I don't see the point of doing it this way, unless it is to make some point.

1168:

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.

52:. People seem fairly divided between keep, delete, and some variant on rename/merge. There's certainly no consensus to delete; I would suggest participants reframe the conversation by having a dedicated conversation on whether merging would be an appropriate outcome. 379:? 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. 2166:

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.

2408:

As the individual who had the daft idea to turn a bulleted list into table, I quite like your article (in particular the lead, which was something I had intended to add to this one), however I would advise against the addition of Rihanna (as noted in that Afd).

2491:. As it stands, the name implies that it's a list of every Twitter user ever and that's just silly. But if we rename it then the name becomes similar to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and the two will basically have the same function. So, merge. 1137:

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. --

1323:

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

1916:

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,

1373:

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.

1262:

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.

1412:

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

2780:

where things are copied from and then proceed to claim that they were copied from somewhere else. (Well, it's either dimwittedness or malice, an outright insult that the edit summary was dishonest. I didn't attribute it to

2618:

Pah! It's not that hard. We have two articles under the umbrella of this discussion, each an alternative of the other. The choice is between deleting both and redirecting either one to the other. The number of people who

2931:

idea that you're confused by something as simple as a suggested alternative being put forward in a discussion is ludicrous. No-one questioned your intelligence, but I told you that you're being a bit dimwitted because you

1714:

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

2949:

Actually, I find this rather amusing. As I look up at the concerns of others being expressed, I'm reminded of the expression "When you point a finger at someone, three more are pointing back at you", for some odd reason.

325:

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

214: 1173:

says that "Knowledge encompasses many lists of links to articles within Knowledge that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject", and so therefore lists function as our own directory system.

1218:- 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 991:

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.

632:

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?

3019:. Not an encyclopedic topic, nor that noteworthy of a trait, with it reaching such high levels of use. Not opposed to more specific article maybe, but as is, seems more appropriate for a category or something... 679:

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

96: 91: 100: 83: 912:

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. --

1240:

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

1861:, 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. 2382:, for which list inclusion criteria have to be then invented. There's a proper prose article here, waiting to get out. It was obscured by the daft choice of using a table. You can see it at 1544:

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.) --

698:

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.

2935:

being a bit dimwitted. This is straightforward and easy to figure out, without being silly and coming over all worried by something very simple whose explanation was right in front of you.

1948:

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.

2784:

at Knowledge. It's not an unusual practice. I've done it several times at AFD, and it happens fairly regularly in article talk page discussion. The important thing to remember at AFD is

2185:) 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. 2134:

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.--

1784:

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

1579:

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.

2203: 317:

There is a fundamental misunderstanding by the voters here about the nature of Knowledge titles. No title ever means, "everything about this subject"; they always mean, everything

1788:, 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 208: 960:

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

2689:. I went instead with keeping the prose, to provide a centralized merger target, and losing the table. I even corrected several errors in the citations along the way. ☺ 2391: 1888: 330: 87: 647:

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.

2321:

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. §§

2181:

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

1524:

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

2036:

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.

529:.. 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.. 169: 2302: 2626: 2579: 2526: 2488: 2424: 2383: 2103: 2003: 1431: 547: 79: 71: 2378:

The basic problem here, that has generated the overwhelming majority of the back-and-forth above, is the totally daft idea of having this as a list article

2655:

was copied from, except that proper hyperlinkage, to conform with our copyright licence, wasn't given in the edit summary by the editor who did it there.

174: 1746:

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.

1728:. Because blogs tend to be more substantive than Twitter feeds, many bloggers have become notable by frequent and reasonably in-depth media coverage ( 142: 137: 146: 1054:

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.

3103: 1529: 405:

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.

129: 721:

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

1150:

unless they are basic topics where the structure of the subject is made clear... something which gives outline of the whole subject; e.g.

2883:

Out of process addition of second article into AfD. Is that what you correctly want me to do? Does that now count as a second "vote"?--

2859:

watchlist and who don't pay attention to subsequent discussion, in light of that. It's not as though that's unusual, either, sad to say.

575: 1066: 2989:

the relevant information, maybe the content won't need its own articles and/or sections in the respective bios. Does that make sense?

2962: 2916: 2754: 2670: 2594: 2350: 2287: 2144: 1988: 1837: 1684: 1638: 1591: 976: 884: 849: 798: 774: 710: 659: 509: 431: 391: 2229: 3049: 229: 1115: 196: 2496: 2148: 1111: 853: 802: 669:

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

3001: 2830: 2473: 2444: 1816: 1198: 264:

Please retract the "possibly millions" statement. Non-notable members of a list can be removed with normal editing. See below.

17: 2839:

This isn't a election. Votes are not "cast". This is a discussion, and good practice here is, as elsewhere in Knowledge, to

1976:, 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. 1107: 486:

Personally I'd rather the tables were expanded to contain note summaries rather than having individual articles on them all.♦

2182: 2068:

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

1525: 1119: 2069: 1387: 1179: 466: 3063:

It is not worthy of having it's own article, Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga alone should not even have their own articles.

1379: 730: 526: 2386:, which I have included under the umbrella of this AFD discussion. It's also an ideal merger target for articles like 1434:; it is a much better article. Although I think that a new article shouldn't have been created, just this one updated. 190: 2785: 2537: 2492: 726: 3088: 3076: 3055: 3030: 3005: 2967: 2944: 2921: 2892: 2870: 2834: 2807: 2759: 2734: 2719: 2700: 2638: 2613: 2599: 2573: 2556: 2539: 2517: 2500: 2477: 2448: 2413: 2403: 2355: 2330: 2314: 2292: 2265: 2241: 2217: 2194: 2171: 2161: 2119: 2095: 2081: 2062: 2040: 2024: 1993: 1967: 1934: 1907: 1878: 1842: 1820: 1772: 1755: 1741: 1705: 1689: 1665: 1643: 1617: 1596: 1570: 1553: 1514: 1500: 1479: 1450: 1421: 1406: 1362: 1348: 1311: 1272: 1257: 1231: 1202: 1163: 1141: 1131: 1085: 1072: 1041: 1027: 1018: 1001: 981: 955: 921: 903: 889: 866: 835:

HOLY WTF?? Now we are trying to by acclamation conditionally keep things if we merge articles that are nominated at

830: 815: 779: 742: 715: 693: 664: 642: 627: 616: 584: 570: 556: 537: 514: 492: 478: 457: 436: 414: 396: 353: 273: 258: 61: 2246: 1945: 1922: 1869:) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Forgot to say keep provided the article name and lead quite strictly define the scope. 1533: 1383: 561:"List of most popular" means some top 20-50? And we measure popularity by number of followers? Is that the plan? §§ 336:

It is never a valid deletion argument to say that an article might be at some future time in violation of WP rules

133: 186: 2609: 2569: 2326: 2237: 1661: 1510: 1475: 1159: 1127: 738: 689: 638: 566: 337: 329:"X celebrity on Twitter" articles are NOT "established"; no article is "safe" from deletion in any case, but as 300: 40: 1299: 2552: 1874: 1866: 1701: 1241: 1103: 909: 402: 368: 2050: 1414: 1291: 1219: 1099: 1095: 1801: 1793: 1721: 1716: 1295: 1283: 1091: 236: 3016: 2259: 2014: 1957: 1901: 1797: 1732:

would be the classic example); I suspect that few people are notable specifically for their use of Twitter.

1694: 1549: 1342: 1307: 1061: 621:

It's not, but its the lesser of two evils. Deleting it doesn't solve the problem we have with the others..♦

376: 3025: 2957: 2911: 2749: 2589: 2345: 2282: 2272: 2140: 1983: 1832: 1679: 1633: 1586: 1320: 1287: 1014: 971: 879: 845: 794: 769: 705: 654: 504: 426: 386: 2888: 1253: 917: 2674: 2652: 2387: 2190: 1751: 1227: 1183: 1151: 622: 579: 551: 532: 487: 453: 410: 372: 349: 269: 125: 67: 36: 3102:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

2647:

First: If you look at the first edit, it's fairly obvious that it's copied and pasted from the places

1010: 306:

No list and no article will ever be in danger of too much content. That is what the edit button is for

1725: 2605: 2565: 2322: 2233: 1657: 1540:, etc. (Is a popular twitter feed any different from a popular book or film?) The list conforms to 1537: 1506: 1471: 1155: 1123: 950: 734: 685: 634: 562: 364: 2884: 2711: 2530: 2306: 2130: 2087: 2072:

doesn't include every single YouTube account, only those notable enough to have their own articles.

1733: 1609: 1562: 1249: 964:

and addresses the shortcomings of a number of articles, while staying within the letter of policy.

913: 2997: 2826: 2715: 2548: 2535: 2469: 2440: 2310: 2091: 1870: 1862: 1812: 1737: 1697: 1613: 1566: 1194: 222: 202: 57: 1789: 2662:

that it's included under the umbrella of this discussion, to stand and fall with it. After all,

2251: 2115: 2077: 2058: 2012: 1973: 1955: 1893: 1779: 1545: 1334: 1303: 1282:- As use of Twitter reaches near-universality, I look forward to new historical articles such as 1147: 1056: 961: 670: 322: 254: 1332:

advocate copying the sum total of those articles here, an act which would indeed be ridiculous.

939:. I am disappointed by the number of folks using this discussion as an excuse for all sorts of 676:"The black and white image features Rihanna crouching against a wall and wearing punk clothes." 3020: 2951: 2940: 2905: 2866: 2803: 2743: 2730: 2696: 2634: 2583: 2399: 2339: 2299: 2276: 2213: 2152: 2135: 1977: 1826: 1673: 1627: 1580: 1496: 997: 965: 873: 857: 840: 806: 789: 763: 699: 648: 498: 420: 380: 29:

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

2658:

Second: It's only "worrisome" if one is lazy. Everyone else will have read the explanation

1390:. I don't think it should be just a rank of the most followed though. Just notable accounts. 35:

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

3074: 3038:. Reading over this, clearly it's not worth having an article. Not against a merge, though. 2547:

Change my view. Merge into Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians. As per Nolelover.

2186: 1747: 1729: 1445: 1401: 1358: 1268: 1223: 1175: 1170: 1037: 936: 899: 826: 474: 449: 406: 345: 265: 246: 2792:

included the alternative under the umbrella of the AFD discussion of the original, just as

821:

your way of saying "Speedy keep" (but there is nothing out of line about this nomination).

2707: 2669:

It's not even hard to work out why the separation, with a little applied thought. First:

2410: 2168: 1769: 1601: 1576: 1418: 1245: 1138: 1082: 1024: 944: 940: 288: 1032:

Lucasoutloud, if you believe that, then you have half a dozen article to put up at AfD.

3039: 2990: 2819: 2462: 2433: 2156: 1805: 1765: 1605: 1187: 861: 810: 604: 341: 307: 296: 53: 1925:, as a truly comprehensive list of Twitter users is neither feasible nor desirable. -- 2513: 2111: 2073: 2054: 1930: 1785: 1761: 836: 722: 681: 419:

Unless, of course, it was made obsolete by the deletion of all the linked articles.

311: 292: 250: 1470:

has said, now based on a persons fame and celebrity, a recursive circle jerk o rama.

2936: 2862: 2799: 2726: 2692: 2630: 2395: 2209: 1489: 993: 2855:

that happen during the discussion and to read earlier comments, by any people who

2768:

require a bit of laziness to not read a very clear explanation of what's going on

163: 117: 3064: 2852:

in a discussion, rather than touch it once and nevermore, one risks missing out.

2037: 1541: 1467: 1437: 1393: 1354: 1264: 1033: 895: 822: 788:

to date if there is a lot of numerical content. We need to discuss the format.--

497:

Utterly brilliant. Then I would support keeping this, if we discard the rest.

470: 318: 284: 1561:

Twitter apparently has over 140,000,000 users. Are we going to list them all?

3085: 2677:. Second: Kelapstick declared that xe was going to make further changes, and 2508:

per Nolelover/CarniCat. (Vote changed from a delete, struck through above.) --

1178:

says that lists and categories are generally complementary, and since we have

2303:

List of Wikipedians whose heads exploded after reading list of lists of lists

1626:

believe this article will (or could) grow to have 140,000,000 entries then?

1386:; probably the latter is better. I don't see how this is much different than 894:

That an article is nominated for GA means, as you well know, nothing at all.

2879:

of a second article so late just feels like a complete out of process move.

2651:

it was copied and pasted from. Ironically, those are the very places that

1825:

The main point being: While the article may have defects, none are fatal.

2509: 1926: 3096:

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

2228:: Non-encyclopedic. Views expressed above. Gawd! We might as well have 1487:

Please keep your delete/keep vote comments to 140 characters or less.

1328:

information from those Twitter account articles could be useful. I do

3106:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

465:

the original title captured that better). Note also the existence of

1724:; an even better and more direct comparison would be the absence of 2110:

to that much better-developed article. Striking my comment above.

525:

On condition that the existing articles are merged. I'd rename it

2578:

That is a reasonable question. If you look at the first edit of

1768:, but don't delete it because there are some red links in it. -- 3084:- calls for deletion seem to stem from intellectual snobbery. — 2786:

not to attempt to preëmpt or to bypass the deletion discussion

2666:, it's the prose article that was in there waiting to get out. 2818:

to get this to no-consensus? This thing is so convoluted...

2086:

A list of personalities isn't the same as a list of people.

1009:

An encyclopedia doesn't comment on social network activity.

245:

Not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. More like a

1648:

Sure! Why not? All one has to do is tweet and pass it on.

596:

I don't see how this can be relevant for an encyclopedia.

401:

I know that other crap exists and all that, but we've had

725:, as Twitter would then be the main subject. Do we keep " 333:

shows, consensus on this issue has yet to be established.

1608:(it is a redirect to the aforementioned list of lists). 1353:

Twitter has a Twitter account--does that not belong? ;)

2794: 2685: 2679: 2621: 2428: 1604:

is a list of lists, not a list of people. There is no

762:

per my above comment and on Dr. Blofeld's conditions.

159: 155: 151: 113: 109: 105: 2629:

is a good indicator of which way the wind is blowing.

221: 2843:

or simply revisit it regularly. It is, after all, a

2204:

list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions

2904:recall questioning your faith, only your choices. 2841:

watchlist a discussion that one has participated in

576:

List of Twitter users with over 5 million followers

2271:I was going to look for more examples, then found 1889:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter 331:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rihanna on Twitter 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2230:List of people eating most number of Hamburgers 2129:People are trying so desperately to get rid of 1760:No we don't have list of bloggers, but we have 2627:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2580:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2527:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2489:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2425:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2384:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2104:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 2004:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 1432:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 548:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 235: 80:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 72:Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians 8: 2622:changed their minds from "delete" to "merge" 2202:Note: This debate has been included in the 1116:List of top 20 most commented Youtube videos 671:dont keep mere collections of internal links 2686:keeping the table and cutting out the prose 1792:articles is what makes this different from 1248:would happen if the text was moved over. -- 1112:List of top 20 most disliked youtube videos 363:- How is this article any more absurd than 2776:dimwitted to see an edit summary outright 2772:where you wonder what's going on. And it 2604:Poor admin who tries to close this AfD. §§ 2201: 1972:Please note that the Manual of Style, at 1108:List of top 20 Most liked Youtube videos 469:--if the one goes, so should the other. 1435: 1391: 1148:don't make lists for ease of navigation 1530:List of best-selling singles worldwide 2645:That's a bit dimwitted on two counts. 1120:List of most shared links on facebook 7: 1649: 2671:The initial edit summary is correct 2427:. At this point, the article seems 1180:Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts 467:Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts 321:Notable about this subject. Hence, 1380:List of most popular Twitter users 731:List of celebrities' bank accounts 527:List of most popular Twitter users 24: 1800:is ever a bluelink, I'll create 1650: 1051:Delete, perhaps rename/repurpose 727:List of celebrities' pet animals 1154:. This is not the case here. §§ 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2848:half days; and if one doesn't 2770:only a few bullet points above 2660:only a few bullet points above 1998:Changed my opinion. I think a 1526:List of highest-grossing films 1106:, etc. Then we will also have 1094:also means proposal of having 1: 2070:List of YouTube personalities 1946:List of notable Twitter users 1923:List of notable Twitter users 1388:List of YouTube personalities 1384:List of notable Twitter users 1244:has so much information that 2683:that those changes involved 2459:redirect (maybe small merge) 2453:I have just clarified, from 2421:Redirect (maybe small merge) 1090:Proposing to have a list of 2106:, and my suggestion now is 1319:- I think the existence of 3123: 2649:that the edit summary says 2247:List of competitive eaters 1534:List of best-selling books 1300:List of automobile drivers 1104:Top 20 Yahoo! Communities 403:List of LiveJournal users 3099:Please do not modify it. 3089:05:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 3077:23:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 3056:18:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 3031:13:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC) 3006:13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2968:21:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2945:17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2922:13:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2893:21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2871:17:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2835:13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2808:11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2795:I did in this discussion 2760:10:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2735:11:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2720:10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2701:09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2639:09:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC) 2614:11:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2600:11:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2574:10:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2557:10:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2540:09:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2518:18:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 2501:05:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 2478:13:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC) 2449:03:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 2414:04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) 2404:16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2356:13:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2331:12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2315:12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2293:12:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2266:12:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2242:08:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2218:23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2195:22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2172:22:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2162:22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2120:12:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC) 2096:08:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 2082:21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2063:21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2051:List of Twitter accounts 2041:20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 2025:19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 1994:19:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1968:19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1935:18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1908:15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1887:- see also related AfD: 1879:13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1843:13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1821:13:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1773:13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1756:22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1742:13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1706:12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1690:12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1666:12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1644:12:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1618:12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1597:11:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1571:11:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1554:09:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1515:07:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1501:07:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1480:04:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1464:List of Twitter accounts 1451:21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 1422:04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1415:List of Twitter accounts 1407:04:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1363:04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1349:02:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1312:02:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1292:List of cell phone users 1273:03:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1258:00:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1242:Justin Bieber on Twitter 1232:23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 1220:List of Twitter accounts 1203:13:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1164:12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1142:07:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1132:07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1100:Top 20 Blogspot accounts 1096:Top 20 Facebook accounts 1086:22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 1073:22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 1042:03:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 1028:22:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 1019:21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 1002:20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 982:20:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 956:20:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 922:18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 910:Justin Bieber on Twitter 908:@Drmies, @TonyTheTiger: 904:04:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 890:21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 867:20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 831:20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 816:19:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 780:19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 743:12:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 716:20:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 694:19:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 665:19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 643:19:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 628:18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 617:18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 585:18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 571:18:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 557:16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 538:18:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 515:17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 493:16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 479:16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 458:16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 437:16:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 415:16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 397:16:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 369:Justin Bieber on Twitter 354:22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 274:22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC) 259:16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) 62:07:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 2275:and my head exploded. 2183:WP:Requests for Comment 1794:List of cellphone users 1722:List of cellphone users 1717:List of cellphone users 1296:List of telephone users 1284:List of people who text 1092:Top 20 Twitter accounts 377:Barack Obama on Twitter 2673:, whereas it isn't in 2273:List of lists of lists 1798:Tom Cruise's cellphone 1622:So you are saying you 1417:) is more suitable. -- 542:Changed opinion I say 2675:list of Twitter users 2653:list of Twitter users 2006:would be successful. 1184:List of Twitter users 1152:Outline of literature 126:List of Twitter users 68:List of Twitter users 2788:, which is why I've 2529:. As per Nolelover. 1538:Forbes Celebrity 100 1321:So-and-so on Twitter 1288:List of e-mail users 365:Lady Gaga on Twitter 3051:Operation Big Bear 2625:after I presented 2532:♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 2388:Rihanna on Twitter 373:Rihanna on Twitter 338:WP:LIKELYVIOLATION 301:WP:LIKELYVIOLATION 2965: 2960: 2919: 2914: 2757: 2752: 2597: 2592: 2358: 2353: 2348: 2333: 2317: 2295: 2290: 2285: 2220: 2207: 2160: 1991: 1986: 1840: 1835: 1783: 1687: 1682: 1641: 1636: 1594: 1589: 979: 974: 941:"pointy" behavior 887: 882: 865: 814: 777: 772: 713: 708: 678: 662: 657: 512: 507: 434: 429: 394: 389: 344:logical fallacy. 3114: 3101: 3071: 3068: 3052: 3046: 3028: 3023: 3017:WP:NOTADIRECTORY 2994: 2963: 2958: 2954: 2917: 2912: 2908: 2823: 2797: 2755: 2750: 2746: 2688: 2682: 2664:as I pointed out 2624: 2595: 2590: 2586: 2533: 2466: 2437: 2351: 2346: 2342: 2336: 2320: 2298: 2288: 2283: 2279: 2270: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2208: 2138: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1906: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1838: 1833: 1829: 1809: 1777: 1730:Andrew Breitbart 1726:List of bloggers 1685: 1680: 1676: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1639: 1634: 1630: 1592: 1587: 1583: 1492: 1449: 1442: 1426:Changed vote to 1405: 1398: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1191: 1182:I don't see how 1069: 1064: 1059: 977: 972: 968: 953: 947: 885: 880: 876: 843: 792: 775: 770: 766: 711: 706: 702: 674: 660: 655: 651: 625: 614: 611: 607: 603: 600: 582: 554: 535: 510: 505: 501: 490: 432: 427: 423: 392: 387: 383: 240: 239: 225: 177: 167: 149: 121: 103: 48:The result was 34: 3122: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3104:this nomination 3097: 3069: 3066: 3054: 3050: 3040: 3026: 3021: 2992: 2952: 2906: 2821: 2793: 2744: 2684: 2678: 2620: 2606:AnimeshKulkarni 2584: 2566:AnimeshKulkarni 2531: 2464: 2435: 2432:to each other. 2375: 2373:Arbitrary break 2340: 2323:AnimeshKulkarni 2277: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2250: 2234:AnimeshKulkarni 2102:I've just seen 2017: 1978: 1960: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1892: 1827: 1807: 1674: 1658:AnimeshKulkarni 1651: 1628: 1602:Lists of people 1581: 1577:Lists of people 1507:AnimeshKulkarni 1490: 1472:Mercurywoodrose 1438: 1394: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1333: 1189: 1156:AnimeshKulkarni 1124:AnimeshKulkarni 1067: 1062: 1057: 966: 951: 945: 874: 764: 735:AnimeshKulkarni 700: 686:AnimeshKulkarni 649: 635:AnimeshKulkarni 623: 612: 609: 605: 601: 598: 580: 563:AnimeshKulkarni 552: 533: 499: 488: 421: 381: 182: 173: 140: 124: 94: 78: 75: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3120: 3118: 3109: 3108: 3092: 3091: 3079: 3058: 3048: 3033: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2845:seven day long 2739: 2738: 2737: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2559: 2549:Anna Frodesiak 2542: 2520: 2503: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2392:AfD discussion 2374: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2222: 2221: 2198: 2197: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2131:Foo on Twitter 2124: 2123: 2122: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2043: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2015: 1958: 1938: 1910: 1882: 1871:Anna Frodesiak 1863:Anna Frodesiak 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1823: 1775: 1758: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1698:Anna Frodesiak 1695:Thurber-style. 1606:List of people 1556: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1482: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1314: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1234: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1075: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1004: 986: 985: 984: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 892: 869: 782: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 540: 519: 518: 517: 481: 462: 461: 460: 439: 399: 358: 357: 356: 342:slippery slope 334: 327: 315: 312:WP:DEL#CONTENT 293:WP:DEL#CONTENT 277: 276: 243: 242: 179: 122: 74: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3119: 3107: 3105: 3100: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3080: 3078: 3075: 3073: 3072: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3047: 3045: 3044: 3037: 3034: 3032: 3029: 3024: 3018: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2995: 2988: 2983: 2969: 2966: 2961: 2955: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2929: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2920: 2915: 2909: 2902: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2858: 2851: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2817: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2758: 2753: 2747: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2687: 2681: 2676: 2672: 2667: 2665: 2661: 2656: 2654: 2650: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2623: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2593: 2587: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2543: 2541: 2538: 2536: 2534: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2504: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2479: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2467: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2438: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2372: 2357: 2354: 2349: 2343: 2335: 2334: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2280: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2263: 2255: 2248: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2205: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2177: 2173: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2032: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1987: 1981: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1897: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1844: 1841: 1836: 1830: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1781: 1780:edit conflict 1776: 1774: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1762:List of blogs 1759: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1683: 1677: 1672: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1637: 1631: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1590: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546:Colapeninsula 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1441: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1397: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1338: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1304:Beyond My Ken 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1197: 1196: 1193: 1192: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1052: 1049: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1003: 999: 995: 990: 987: 983: 980: 975: 969: 963: 959: 958: 957: 954: 948: 942: 938: 934: 931: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 893: 891: 888: 883: 877: 870: 868: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 842: 838: 834: 833: 832: 828: 824: 819: 818: 817: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 791: 786: 783: 781: 778: 773: 767: 761: 758: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 723:Twitter usage 719: 718: 717: 714: 709: 703: 697: 696: 695: 691: 687: 683: 682:Twitter usage 677: 672: 668: 667: 666: 663: 658: 652: 646: 645: 644: 640: 636: 631: 630: 629: 626: 620: 619: 618: 615: 608: 595: 592: 586: 583: 577: 574: 573: 572: 568: 564: 560: 559: 558: 555: 549: 545: 541: 539: 536: 530: 528: 524: 520: 516: 513: 508: 502: 496: 495: 494: 491: 485: 482: 480: 476: 472: 468: 463: 459: 455: 451: 448: 444: 440: 438: 435: 430: 424: 418: 417: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 398: 395: 390: 384: 378: 374: 370: 366: 362: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 313: 309: 305: 304: 302: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 279: 278: 275: 271: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 256: 252: 248: 238: 234: 231: 228: 224: 220: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 188: 185: 184:Find sources: 180: 176: 171: 165: 161: 157: 153: 148: 144: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 102: 98: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 76: 73: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3098: 3095: 3081: 3065: 3060: 3042: 3041: 3035: 3022:Sergecross73 3012: 3002: 2998: 2991: 2986: 2953:Dennis Brown 2932: 2927: 2907:Dennis Brown 2880: 2861: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2831: 2827: 2820: 2815: 2789: 2782: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2745:Dennis Brown 2706:Please stay 2691: 2680:it was clear 2668: 2663: 2659: 2657: 2648: 2646: 2585:Dennis Brown 2561: 2544: 2522: 2505: 2484: 2474: 2470: 2463: 2458: 2454: 2445: 2441: 2434: 2420: 2379: 2341:Dennis Brown 2278:Dennis Brown 2225: 2178: 2136:TonyTheTiger 2126: 2107: 2046: 2045: 2033: 2021: 2011: 2010: 2007: 1999: 1979:Dennis Brown 1964: 1954: 1953: 1950: 1941: 1940: 1918: 1913: 1912: 1884: 1858: 1857: 1828:Dennis Brown 1817: 1813: 1806: 1790:X on Twitter 1675:Dennis Brown 1670: 1629:Dennis Brown 1623: 1582:Dennis Brown 1558: 1521: 1505:Nice one! §§ 1488: 1484: 1463: 1459: 1439: 1427: 1395: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1329: 1325: 1316: 1279: 1236: 1215: 1199: 1195: 1188: 1077: 1055: 1050: 1023:Says who? -- 1011:Lucasoutloud 1006: 988: 967:Dennis Brown 932: 875:Dennis Brown 841:TonyTheTiger 790:TonyTheTiger 784: 765:Dennis Brown 759: 701:Dennis Brown 675: 650:Dennis Brown 597: 593: 543: 522: 521: 500:Dennis Brown 483: 446: 445:per Blofeld 442: 422:Dennis Brown 382:Dennis Brown 360: 340:. This is a 280: 244: 232: 226: 218: 211: 205: 199: 193: 183: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 2850:participate 2187:Anarchangel 1974:WP:LISTNAME 1748:Anarchangel 1468:Clive James 1382:, or maybe 1224:Crisco 1492 962:WP:PRESERVE 946:Orange Mike 624:Dr. Blofeld 581:Dr. Blofeld 553:Dr. Blofeld 534:Dr. Blofeld 489:Dr. Blofeld 450:Mark Arsten 407:Mark Arsten 346:Anarchangel 323:WP:LISTNAME 266:Anarchangel 209:free images 2411:kelapstick 2300:WP:REQUEST 2169:kelapstick 2153:WP:CHICAGO 1770:kelapstick 1419:kelapstick 1186:is wrong. 1139:kelapstick 1083:kelapstick 1025:kelapstick 858:WP:CHICAGO 807:WP:CHICAGO 326:necessary. 3043:Wizardman 2993:Nolelover 2885:LauraHale 2822:Nolelover 2712:Dricherby 2465:Nolelover 2436:Nolelover 2307:Dricherby 2210:• Gene93k 2088:Dricherby 1808:Nolelover 1804:myself). 1802:that list 1734:Dricherby 1610:Dricherby 1563:Dricherby 1250:LauraHale 1190:Nolelover 1176:WP:NOTDUP 1171:WP:NOTDIR 1122:, wow! §§ 937:WP:NOTDIR 914:LauraHale 247:directory 54:Ironholds 37:talk page 2928:only you 2781:malice.) 2708:WP:CIVIL 2493:CarniCat 2429:unlikely 2338:exist. 2112:Robofish 2108:Redirect 2074:Robofish 2055:Robofish 1575:We have 1428:redirect 1326:selected 1246:WP:UNDUE 441:!voting 289:WP:SPLIT 251:Dew Kane 170:View log 39:or in a 2937:Uncle G 2881:Oppose: 2863:Uncle G 2800:Uncle G 2727:Uncle G 2693:Uncle G 2631:Uncle G 2562:COMMENT 2396:Uncle G 2261:Shalott 2157:WP:FOUR 2127:Comment 1903:Shalott 1766:WP:WTAF 1491:Lugnuts 1485:Comment 1344:Shalott 1317:Comment 994:Jeancey 862:WP:FOUR 811:WP:FOUR 484:Comment 361:Comment 308:WP:EDIT 297:WP:EDIT 215:WP refs 203:scholar 143:protect 138:history 97:protect 92:history 3061:Delete 3036:Delete 3027:msg me 3015:- Per 3013:Delete 2816:trying 2790:always 2778:saying 2380:at all 2226:Delete 2047:Rename 2038:Secret 2034:Delete 1942:Rename 1919:rename 1914:Delete 1786:WP:CLN 1671:Touché 1624:really 1559:Delete 1460:Rename 1440:Statυs 1396:Statυs 1376:Rename 1355:Drmies 1280:Delete 1265:Drmies 1034:Drmies 1007:Delete 989:Delete 935:- per 933:Delete 896:Drmies 837:WP:GAC 823:Drmies 729:" or " 606:ηυηzια 594:Delete 471:Drmies 447:et al. 187:Google 147:delete 101:delete 3086:Pengo 2857:don't 2545:Merge 2525:into 2523:Merge 2506:Merge 2487:into 2485:Merge 2455:merge 2002:into 2000:merge 1237:Keep: 1068:Space 733:"? §§ 613:`”°º× 610:×º°”˜ 602:`”°º× 599:×º°”˜ 578:..?♦ 546:into 544:Merge 375:, or 230:JSTOR 191:books 175:Stats 164:views 156:watch 152:links 118:views 110:watch 106:links 16:< 3082:Keep 2941:talk 2926:No, 2889:talk 2867:talk 2804:talk 2766:does 2731:talk 2716:talk 2697:talk 2635:talk 2610:talk 2570:talk 2553:talk 2514:talk 2497:meow 2400:talk 2327:talk 2311:talk 2253:Lady 2238:talk 2232:. §§ 2214:talk 2191:talk 2179:Keep 2116:talk 2092:talk 2078:talk 2059:talk 2016:dןǝɥ 1959:dןǝɥ 1931:talk 1895:Lady 1885:Note 1875:talk 1867:talk 1859:Keep 1796:(if 1752:talk 1738:talk 1702:talk 1662:talk 1614:talk 1567:talk 1550:talk 1542:WP:L 1522:Keep 1511:talk 1497:talk 1476:talk 1446:talk 1402:talk 1371:Keep 1359:talk 1336:Lady 1308:talk 1298:and 1269:talk 1254:talk 1228:talk 1216:Keep 1160:talk 1128:talk 1078:Keep 1063:From 1058:Them 1038:talk 1015:talk 998:talk 952:Talk 943:. -- 918:talk 900:talk 827:talk 785:Keep 760:Keep 739:talk 690:talk 684:. §§ 639:talk 567:talk 523:Keep 475:talk 454:talk 443:Keep 411:talk 350:talk 319:WP:N 285:WP:N 283:See 281:Note 270:talk 255:talk 223:FENS 197:news 160:logs 134:talk 130:edit 114:logs 88:talk 84:edit 70:and 58:talk 3070:Jay 3067:Jay 2987:all 2933:are 2764:It 2612:) 2572:) 2510:BDD 2457:to 2423:to 2394:). 2329:) 2305:!! 2249::/ 2240:) 2149:BIO 2049:to 1944:to 1927:BDD 1921:to 1664:) 1513:) 1462:to 1430:to 1378:to 1330:not 1162:) 1146:We 1130:) 854:BIO 839:.-- 803:BIO 741:) 692:) 641:) 569:) 550:.♦ 237:TWL 172:• 168:– ( 2959:2¢ 2956:- 2943:) 2913:2¢ 2910:- 2891:) 2869:) 2806:) 2798:. 2774:is 2751:2¢ 2748:- 2733:) 2718:) 2699:) 2637:) 2591:2¢ 2588:- 2555:) 2516:) 2499:) 2461:. 2409:-- 2402:) 2347:2¢ 2344:- 2313:) 2284:2¢ 2281:- 2257:of 2216:) 2206:. 2193:) 2167:-- 2159:) 2118:) 2094:) 2080:) 2061:) 1985:2¢ 1982:- 1933:) 1899:of 1891:. 1877:) 1834:2¢ 1831:- 1754:) 1740:) 1704:) 1681:2¢ 1678:- 1656:§§ 1635:2¢ 1632:- 1616:) 1588:2¢ 1585:- 1569:) 1552:) 1536:, 1532:, 1528:, 1499:) 1478:) 1436:— 1392:— 1361:) 1340:of 1310:) 1302:. 1294:, 1290:, 1286:, 1271:) 1256:) 1230:) 1222:— 1118:, 1114:, 1110:, 1102:, 1098:, 1040:) 1017:) 1000:) 973:2¢ 970:- 949:| 920:) 902:) 881:2¢ 878:- 864:) 829:) 813:) 771:2¢ 768:- 707:2¢ 704:- 656:2¢ 653:- 633:§§ 531:♦ 506:2¢ 503:- 477:) 456:) 428:2¢ 425:- 413:) 388:2¢ 385:- 371:, 367:, 352:) 310:, 303:. 299:, 295:, 291:, 287:, 272:) 257:) 217:) 162:| 158:| 154:| 150:| 145:| 141:| 136:| 132:| 116:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 99:| 95:| 90:| 86:| 60:) 2964:© 2939:( 2918:© 2887:( 2865:( 2802:( 2756:© 2729:( 2714:( 2695:( 2633:( 2608:( 2596:© 2568:( 2551:( 2512:( 2495:( 2398:( 2390:( 2352:© 2325:( 2309:( 2289:© 2236:( 2212:( 2189:( 2155:/ 2151:/ 2147:/ 2145:C 2143:/ 2141:T 2139:( 2114:( 2090:( 2076:( 2057:( 2022:| 2008:| 1990:© 1965:| 1951:| 1929:( 1873:( 1865:( 1839:© 1782:) 1778:( 1750:( 1736:( 1700:( 1686:© 1660:( 1640:© 1612:( 1593:© 1565:( 1548:( 1509:( 1495:( 1474:( 1448:) 1444:( 1413:( 1404:) 1400:( 1357:( 1306:( 1267:( 1252:( 1226:( 1158:( 1126:( 1036:( 1013:( 996:( 978:© 916:( 898:( 886:© 860:/ 856:/ 852:/ 850:C 848:/ 846:T 844:( 825:( 809:/ 805:/ 801:/ 799:C 797:/ 795:T 793:( 776:© 737:( 712:© 688:( 661:© 637:( 565:( 511:© 473:( 452:( 433:© 409:( 393:© 348:( 314:. 268:( 253:( 241:) 233:· 227:· 219:· 212:· 206:· 200:· 194:· 189:( 181:( 178:) 166:) 128:( 120:) 82:( 56:(

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

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/List of Twitter users - Knowledge

Index