Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweeter (Internet)


 * 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. X clamation point  03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweeter (Internet)

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

neologism, based on original research Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete When it comes to internet lingo, Google actually is a fairly good test. Guess what? Didn't find reference to this term being used in this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources, no Google hits, re: WP:NOR. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. An alternative might be a redirect to Twitter as Tweeter seems to be entering the language as a user of that service. . Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a simple mention at Tweeter (disambiguation) would serve that purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What does this article need in order to avoid deletion? As I have said, it is a very functional term that is used verbally among our admin group in order to classify/ban/censor this type of individual that does not fall under the classical definition of 'troll'. Any help on referencing, editing, or deltions/exclusions that would legitimize this article would be appreciated. Thank you to everyone that has commented thus far. . Homicidalhombre (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reason as everyone else Vasant56 (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G10 Appears like an attack to Twitter users and is not referencing any of the controversial material. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Even though "Tweeter" is entering the language as a reference to Twitter, none of the author's edits have mentioned Twitter, and what he's describing doesn't seem relevant to Twitter to me. I can see this page eventually turning into an attack page on Twitter, but it doesn't seem like it's there yet to me. I declined the speedy, but since the author says on the talk page that this is "our" (?) own idea and there are no references for it, I let him know that the article probably won't survive our WP:NOR policy. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The person who created the article says the term is in active use somewhere; I would be curious to learn more about this. In the past, we have certainly seen cases where political staffers join online discussion groups formed by their boss's opponents and work to cause trouble. Right now we have a "strawman sockpuppet" section in the Internet sockpuppet article and a "concern troll" section in the Internet troll article, but these are part of the same phenomenon and I would bet often the exact same set of people. betsythedevine (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources shows lack of notability and leaves the door open in terms of WP:NOR. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Houston, we have a snowball. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR at best. § FreeRangeFrog 20:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Simple. It needs reliable sources indicating that more than a few people are familiar with this term being used in this manner. Since neither yourself nor anybody else can find those, it's a case of Wikipedia not being for things that are made up. I'm sure you and your associates really do use this term this way, but until it finds wider use and gets some media coverage, it's not an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to get this term into Wikipedia would be to get somebody to write about it in what we consider a reliable source, like a newspaper or Wired or CNET. Then you can cite that. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to reference admin groups with which we are familiar, however, this article has already been previously forwarded to many use groups including Wired Online. . Does this usage need to be searchable by Google in order to be considered 'verifiable'?? Or will a simple link to an online page featuring this prior usage of terminology be acceptable? This is the first article I have written for Wikipedia, and I apologize, it has been a learning experience. . Homicidalhombre (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reasons are clear- no reliable sources, no claims of notability. tedder (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading Your first article for basics, and pay close attention to the guidelines on reliable sources. Just being able to google it or see people talking about it isn't enough. tedder (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment just removed quite a few links to non-existant translations on other wiki's from this article, placed there by the content author. "Paper-hanging" won't save an article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I tried to look up the reference to 'Paper Hanging' and only came up with something to do with 'bad cheques'. The links I posted were 'redirect links' on non-existent pages that were meant to assist others trying to find this page without typing in the exact title for search specifications.  ie. Internet Tweeter instead of Tweeter (Internet) I believe the term is in current with use with admins and moderators, and will prove to be quite useful beyond slang once knowlege of it is disseminated.  I am in the process of doing research to find out if anyone else presently using the term has done any articles on it, as well as talking with several print and online editor/authors about this article in order to obtain reference points. Homicidalhombre (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Paper Hanging You may find the term here [] (13th paragraph), as used by George S Patton. I would define it as meaning; "attempting to alter the perception of truth, by means of propaganda". I would classify as "propaganda" the following portions of todays ''"Media Blitz";
 * the 12 links to non-existant translations on other wiki's that you added to this article,
 * the 2 disambiguation links you inserted into other articles,
 * the 4 or 5 redirects you created.
 * Wuhwuzdat (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We've all been trying in good faith to explain to you what needs to happen for this article to be kept. There can be only one response to these latest actions: Note that I used a minnow, since you are a new user. Next time, I'm gonna break out the full on WikiTrout. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that was a good-humored whap with the minnow, but even so I want to defend Homicidalhombre a bit more here. He is apparently a new editor and an enthusiastic one, looking for ways to spend time enhancing the chances of his article, not knowing which methods are considered illegitimate or why. Let's not bite him. I remember how frustrated I was, way back in 2006, in the days when I thought Wikipedia should include the term "concern troll" but it hadn't yet showed up in non-blog media. Finally Ana Marie Cox defined it in Newsweek, and now it is here and everywhere. Maybe the word "Tweeter" or some other word with the same useful meaning will have the same future. One of the thing that helped "concern troll" get out there was creating buzz by "outing" practitioners based on their IP addresses. But maybe the new "tweeters" are too sophisticated for that to happen... betsythedevine (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2009 (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.