The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge some content to the main Lady Gaga article. There is clearly not consensus to keep the article in its current form. Beyond that, the number of opinions expressed are approximately evenly split between merge and delete. Although bolded deletes outnumber bolded merges, some of those "deletes" also suggest merging. Strength of argument is also roughly balanced. To execute consensus, I'm redirecting the article and leaving it up to the editorial process to determine how much of this article should be merged, and how it should be integrated into the Lady Gaga article (or the Twitter article for that matter).Chaser (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga on Twitter[edit]

Lady Gaga on Twitter (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)

This is not an article about @ladygag it is an article about Lady Gaga on Twitter and as such it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article. Articles on the use of a social medium by a public figure are simply not notable, some extraordinary "accounts" are however not in this case nor was it in the case of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The problem is that this topic does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article and is not of any educational value or sources about the account itself, just the celebrity attached to it. The sources are for Lady Gaga not for her account and are therefore SYNTHESIS, henceforth we must delete this entry and merge a small amount of useful information to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians or Lady Gaga possibly Lady Gaga#public_image if not we will have to accept an unending series of Lady Gaga on Facebook, on Instagram, on Pinterist, on Google +, Lady Gaga's shoes, Lady Gaga's outfits and other useless TRIVIA that could be potentially be forked and sourced in an unlimited and indiscriminate manner but with undue weight. Lastly the relevant policy in this case what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lastly this article is about Lady Gaga not @ladygaga and notability is not inherited. LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Renaming the article to @ladygaga is trivial to do if that's really an issue and her twitter account is clearly notable, as is her use of it and how it has influence her career. Sources that discuss it as such include this (pgs 114-116) and this (description of the account). However, what would be much better especially with Lady Gaga is to make the article be about all social media she's involved in, because she really is a virtuoso of using it (Sources: [1], [2]). So, unlike Barack Obama who is primarily focused on Twitter, Gaga uses Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube equally and is also in the process of setting up her own social network. Finally, all of your arguments have already been refuted in the Barack Obama on Twitter AfD, including why using INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIARY are inappropriate arguments and how nothing in NOT applies here. Also, how this isn't SYNTHESIS and I wonder if you even understand what that means. This subject is notable and should have a standalone article, because there is way too much information to be covered in the Gaga main article without a due weight issue. Silverseren^C 09:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' It's not trivial, the title gives away that this is a notability is not inherited issue and must be deleted. "her twitter account is clearly notable, as is her use of it and how it has influence her career.", her Her HER, see lady gaga is a her and her is notable but i'm afraid this account is a what and this account is not notable independent of gaga and should be deleted. There is only trivia here, musings of passing preferences for salad over cheeseburgers, and a pr tweet stating love of korea. Nothing educational there, and nothing unrelated to gaga. I am sure she uses email and snail mail too but we don't need to catalogue that, it is undue weight. Who care's if she is setting up a social network? Prove it! And not relevant to some twitter account. That is neither here nor there. No arguments have been refuted as that debate is still ongoing. The content in this article is Diary like and trivia, that is part of what wikipedia is not, and we are not an indiscriminate dump of passing notions someone types in their phone or their press agent does. The synthesis is that because gaga is notable and she has a twitter account, and there are sources about gaga and twitter that they can be cross referenced into making @ladygaga notable, when all the sources are about Lady Gaga not @ladygaga, see some twitter accounts are notable by themseleves such as Shit My Dad Says but a gaga account on her account is superfluous because she is already notable enough for an article and does not need a splintering here. Also her twitter account has not been cited as having anything significant associated with it nor noteworthy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete Actually, there is no relevant or useful encyclopedic value to maintaining a record of Lady Gaga trivia and nostalgia informatics, to include twitter use, that are better served on a fanzine website. The information noted is synthesized, not of particular value, and has no major/definitive social impacts of a memorable scale such as the use of social media in Eygpt to force social change, or the use of social media in Occupy Wall Street to mass organize the vandalization of cities, persons, and ideologies. Nothing Lady Gaga tweets carries social relevance beyond her fan base, and again that is served best by fanzine websites. Letting this piece of ancillary material stand only weakens the usefulness and validity of the entire community. Ren99 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's the same with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter; the article simply has no encyclopedic value. WP:WHIM stresses that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Some of the content such as the fact that she's the most followed on Twitter can be put in the Lady Gaga article but a whole article about it is unnecessary as per WP:WWIN. Till 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to userspace - Unlike low-profile Twitter accounts, like horse eBooks, Gaga is a high-profile celebrity. An article of a subtopic, like this, is overly bloated without significant impact. Well-explained in Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but even a book about her use of Twitter can be well-explained in one article more than this article itself. If userspace, a creator must request it. --George Ho (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This content does not belong on an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there is no convincing justification for including this over an account of any person's Twitter presence, even that she's the most followed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Delete - The details of how Lady Gaga has a fanbase following her on Twitter is an interesting concept and deserves note in the Wikipedia article about her.... but a whole article devoted to one form of communication about a celebrity? Is there anything comparable about webpages or blogs getting similar kind of coverage, even if the blog or website is itself notable? More to the point, there isn't really that much information and I don't see the article growing all that much, where all of this content could easily fit onto the Lady Gaga page and be much more in context with the rest of that particular article. In fact, as far as the main article authors are concerned, this content is so insignificant and of so little note (thus questioning the notability of the article) there isn't even a paragraph talking about the Twitter fans on that page with a hatnote referencing this particular article. I'd call that pretty condemnatory by itself. Particularly because there is no independent notability about the Twitter account separate from Lady Gaga herself, I fail to see what is gained by keeping this article as something independent. I just doubt that those maintaining the Lady Gaga page would use much of the content of this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lady Gaga on Twitter is not notable by itself, merge the information that stands out into Lady Gaga. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete - I can't possibly see how this topic could be independently notable. If anything is worth saving, merge it into Lady Gaga with no redirect.  -- WikHead (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a collection of things that happened related to Gaga on twitter, but outside of the individual events there no significant coverage / encyclopedic analysis of the twit-o-sphere that cannot be/already is covered appropriately in the main Gaga article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the notability of both Lady Gaga and the notability of Twitter, the two of them together isn't a recipe for a stand alone article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a subsection of her own article. Gaga - notable. Twitter - notable. Give them an article apiece, why not. But this just adds some bizarre undue weight to her use of what is a commonplace thing, such as a telephone, toilet or cappuccino machine. Content-wise it is far too reliant on whatever she has twat (or twote, never sure what the correct past tense is). pablo 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have heard twitted, twatted, twoted, but I believe tweeted is the "correct" form.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire We are trying to build a serious encyclopaedia. This fails WP:NOT. If there is anything worth saving, put it in the article about the artist. Arcandam (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anything worth saving should go in the main Lady Gaga article. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and merge anything worthwile to Lady Gaga. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into its own section in Lady Gaga. TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was really surprised such an article has been existing for months. It is far from being encyclopedic. Who reads this article except her fans? Are we going to make an article on every celebrity's twitter account because they use it a lot? Seriously?! --Sofffie7 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Considering the arguments "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and "WP:NOT" are wrong, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter, and that the people that argue "delete", their main reasoning is "I don't like it" (Arcandam), or they want to delete it but also to be merged (see the nonsense with Inks.LWC, Jojhutton, TheRedPenOfDoom, etc.), the article can be merged and redirected to that section, we don't need a deletion here. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? I do not remember writing "I don't like it" here. Are you sure that that is my reasoning for my vote? If so, why did I write a different reason next to my vote? Arcandam (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• there have been multiple sources that have analyzed Obama's use of twitting, at least in the political sphere, as a new communication method that he has been able to utilize successfully. I am not aware that Gaga's twitting has been analyzed in the same manner, and if it has, those sources have not been incorporated into the article. Hence "WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and "WP:NOT". -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How are they wrong? WP:NOT says that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which fits perfectly here. And don't conclude that people not liking the article is their reasons for favoring deletion. Till 02:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No one said; "I don't like it." You have misread. We have said [sic]; "It is not relevant, it is not material to the function of humanity, and no one really cares outside the fan-page environment." I would suggest that you pause for a moment and consider what impact Barack Obama on Twitter or even Queen Elizabeth on Twitter has in the way of significance before mentioning something as unimportant as Ashton Kutcher on Twitter or Lady Gaga on Twitter in the same breath; the former make major decisions of International importance and carry the weight of nations, while the latter make personal commentary on relationship woes and what cut makes the best meat dress. Again, nothing "Lady" Gaga says has significant impact outside the fanzine zone and has no need for encyclopedic inclusion in Wiki.Ren99 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Ren99 (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone defend themselves against WP:IDONTLIKEIT the same way? Have you read the examples there? PROTIP: none of them say 'I don't like it'. If you and Arcandam hadn't actually read it recently, fine, I can see how you'd make that mistake, but otherwise it's just being disingenuous... Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim, other people disagreed but you haven't given any proof. Now you are saying we are being disingenuous. PROTIP: On this planet we dislike people who accuse us of being disingenuous. Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaha, what a strange custom. Fair enough, I have no doubt you won't allow me to infer any similarities to the examples listed on IDONTLIKEIT so (although I didn't make the claim this time around), I will suggest that WP:UNENCYC is a more appropriate representation of your arguements. Now, are you going to tell me how you didn't 'directly' apply the specific adjective 'unencyclopedic' to the content of the article, or how you used a grand total of three words and not just two to cite WP:NOT, and therefore claim this is a completely unfounded and inaccurate characterization of the argument you made here? Speaking of which, I ought vote, since I've taken up all this space. I'll add it below.Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly I mean cmon, it's not like we are talking about Madonna on Twitter which would could and should be defended psychotically as she is obviously more important than Lady Gaga, Barack Obama, The Pope, War, Terrorism, Hunger, AIDS, or clubbed baby seals combined.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ok Madonna is more important than Lady Gaga, because she is in this business since the eighties while Lady Gaga only made her breakthrough in 2008 but saying Madonna is more important than the President of the United States, War, Terrorism, Hunger and AIDS, well that's a bit much! Anyways, this is off the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.57.182 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga, he is not really extant, Madonna is more important than the cure for HIV Cancer or /\/!kkaz!LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and dispute what content in this article is trivial (ie perceived competition with Bieber - not encyclopedic) and what is actually important to her career (I tried to find something to put here, but alas, I failed). This doesn't justify a separated article in any regard, and I think its a shining example of WP:AVOIDSPLIT. If Lady Gaga is too large an article, then I suggest creating a page on her media appearances/interviews on TV, film, radio AND social media in general, and not the narrow scope of Twitter. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Unlike some of the other articles, I don't see anything yet in the article that represents a distinctly 'Lady Gaga + Twitter' phenomenon. That is to say, a) most of these things could and would be true in a world where Twitter didn't exist and b) anyone looking for any of this information wouldn't really need to see it in the context of the other information in the article. Ironically, I think IINFO might actually apply to this one, insofar as nothing is gained from having the information all together that wasn't there when it was separate. But my reading of that policy may be odd. Facts like being the most followed and possibly a mention of the competition can go into a bit on Lady Gaga's main article. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - To the nominator, please don't use WP:SYNTH as a reason for deletion, especially since you misquoted and misunderstood the policy, which is about original research, and not at all about source topics. Please note that this article easily meets the GNG, our primary indicator of notability, with mentions in the Canberra Times, the Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. (Yes, they are on topic, yes they are significant mentions) However, I am sensitive to the claims that this breakout of the Lady Gaga article is about a minor part of Lady Gaga's impact (A minor work of new media, if you will) and wikipedia would be better served with a much shortened section in the main article. There is, however, no reason at all to remove the extensive history of this article by deleting it.  The Steve  00:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few of us seem to be missing the point that Lady Gaga's twitter-tweeting falls directly under the idea of WP:NOT. Simply put, the material associated with her "use" of twitter is amenable to fanzine publication, but has no encyclopedic value whatsoever overtime. In fact, I see a fair degree of WP:NPOV from what appears to be members of her fanbase arguing here that "everything Gaga" is instrinsically important, when in fact, it is not. If you wish to debate from a non-biased point of view, you will have to establish what true value her tweets provide the world in the form of enduring, valuable, and recordable encyclopedic content other than a nod of your hat to her "assets." Ren99 (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lady Gaga. Much like the old Justin Bieber on Twitter, I think that there's relevant information here that would be useful to have on Lady Gaga's main page. To be honest, I can see where some people calling for this to be deleted are coming from because of some content in here that feels like padding and unnecessary (e.g. her tweet about how she loves Korea). But, articles talking about how she is the most popular celebrity on Twitter and how the marketing reach of Lady Gaga is an example of what brands can achieve. All this said, most of this content should probably be deleted in a merge, and unlike Bieber's section on his page, it should probably be put under the "Public Image" section. Nomader (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Same rationale I will post here as in Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter, which was inarguably a better article. Delete article, but merge the non-trivial bits (by which I mean the majority of the article) into Lady Gaga. WP:WHIM seems to apply here, a lot of the article is random facts about individual tweets. From what I've seen of the sources, a large number of them refer to Lady Gaga as the principal subject, and her twitter account only as a side-issue. See WP:WEB - web content does not necessarily have inherited notability. In addition, if we were to adopt the level of notability for social media that this has, we should note that there are enough sources tangentially covering various topics, with articles being needed for hundreds of public figures on many different kinds of platform. This seems to go against the spirit (if not also the exact letter in every case) of several policies, including WP:NOT for a start, WP:NOTDIARY, and, again,WP:IINFO.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, because I actually don't know, is there a difference between 'Delete, but merge a couple things' and just 'Merge' or 'merge and redirect'? I understand that delete also makes page history inaccessible, for example, and the redirect is a question of whether the name of the article becomes free/empty, right? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:MAD for merge versus "merge and delete". In this particular case, if the decision is delete, it wouldn't make any real difference whether a redirect is left behind or not, since Lady Gaga on Twitter is not going to be an article title for any other distinct concept, unlike Mars, which can mean a planet, a god, a company that produces chocolate bars, etc.--Chaser (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.