Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitter accounts (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Consensus clear that article passes WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Twitter accounts (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)

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this passes even basic notability standards such as WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skirts89, Notability isn't sufficient even by what you cite...check the last bullet point, "perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I will have to see some more convincing arguments for deletion in order to support the AfD. Skirts89 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A large number of studies have been performed on Twitter accounts and interaction, many of which have focused on the most followed Twitter accounts. Additionally, there has been a bit of news coverage (although its far less impressive than the journal articles). I beleive that WP:LISTN has been satisfied. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Satisfies WP:LISTN (and even WP:GNG). Has enough secondary source coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Top Twitter accounts have been the subject of significant and longstanding RS coverage and analysis. Maintenance of this particular list is rather light, checking once a month on current rankings. Finally I have seen no evidence of UPE/COI editing here, and there is no edit warring to speak of. Nomination reeks of WP:I just don't like it. — JFG ^talk 15:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:LISTN. This is not a top-quality source check, but I found [1], [2], [3], and especially [4] (just kidding) — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as appears to satisfy WP:LISTN. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 11:05, 17 February 2019 (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.