Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twiction


 * 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 per WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Twiction

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

Was prodded a few weeks ago for failing WP:NEO, and it still fails it - the only reliable source given is a New York Times article that doesn't actually use the word "Twiction". McGeddon (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not really relevant in the world outside of Twitter and I've never heard or seen anyone use the word. This is more of an Urban Dictionary entry, not a Wikipedia entry. --Blasterman 95 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, it could use some work. But it does seem to me that there is value to keeping the article, as it seems to detail a valid trend on the internet.  Especially since twitter is becoming much more popular, I think articles like this can be very useful. 96.242.163.72 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete At this point, doesn't seem notable, but it might be the next irritating word we have to hear endlessly in a few months (like Twitter itself). Conical Johnson (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to speculate whether it might be the next big thing. If it's not a big thing yet - if no reliable sources have yet written a word about it - then it shouldn't have an article yet. We could find a thousand minor neologisms on Twitter, any one of which might achieve widespread use in six months' time, but that doesn't mean we should write them all up now just in case. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should elaborate that I wasn't saying we should keep it because it might be big soon. The wekness of my delete was only because I personally am not really into the Twitter world and wouldn't know if something was big within it. So, although it doesn't seem notable to me, I wasn't completely sure that this isn't something kind of big among Twitter fans. It seems to me that because Twitter is a new form of media, the memes involved might be disseminated in a way different from what we're used to seeing. In any case, I say delete as per WP:NEO. Conical Johnson (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NEO. One mention in a NYT blog and some mention on Twitter sites (hardly neutral RS's) don't get past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth emphasising that the NYT article doesn't use the word "Twiction"; it's a journalist writing about his own "Twiller" (a thriller created through Twitter). And he references the word "Twiller" as his own "cheap word play" rather than a widespread term. It looks like we have a while to go before there's an agreed word for these things. --McGeddon (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Made up in a day. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 27 July 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.