Talk:Twerp

Status
A previous page with the title "Twerp" was deleted: see Articles for deletion/Twerp. At present this article is no more than a dictionary definition. Such definitions do not belong in an encyclopaedia, but in a dictionary. If this article is to survive, it needs to be provided with some substantial content. If not it should be transwikified to the dictionary. Peterkingiron 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

2007-08-29 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?
This is a pointless article - this seems to be a minor recently-published children's book. Apart from a few user- and talk-pages, this is linked to only one page (which is the author's, Mark M. Goldblatt), and a page for its sequel has not been created. This should either be deleted, or changed to be a definition and history of the colloquial term. Thoughts? Orlando the Cat (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The book meets the notability criterion 'The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself' (WP:BKCRIT). So it would make more sense to improve it than delete it. If we do want an entry for the term twerp, the entry for the book could be moved to Twerp (novel). And the lack of an entry for the sequel isn't a reason to delete this entry: it's a reason to write one about the sequel! Alarichall (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)