Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titsup.com


 * 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   delete.  Singu larity  02:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Titsup.com

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced article about a non-notable neologism.  D C Edwards 1966  18:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a notable neologism, as evidenced by usage of media outlets such as The Register - a google search is instructive. Parts of the article need to be cited better but deletion is not a solution to the problem. --Gurubrahma (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is un-encyclopedic and more worth to be in the Urban Dictionary... not here.--Pmedema (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, reads like its hanging from a coatrack as well.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Powers T 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NEO, but remember, Jeremy, simply being a neologism is not a reason to delete.  a s e nine say what?  21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per previous comments. (But would the nonprofit equivalent of this be Titsup.org?) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a dictionary. —  Wen li  (reply here) 03:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.