Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twittersphere

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twittersphere

I deprodded to put on AfD. I'm putting this on afd because while the term gets thrown around occasionally and it requires consensus, although I don't believe it's notable (despite its use in mass media).

The original version of the page suggested it had been created today; that part has been removed Shadowjams (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Term gets plenty of use in RSes [1] and [2] pretty much defines the term. I think this meets the requirements of WP:NNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
Delete dicdef. Belongs on Wiktionary. Reso lute 14:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to Blogosphere. Anyone familiar with the subject would be unsurprised at that. Feel free to create Wikt:Twittersphere--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in wiktionary. It is a WP:NEOLOGISM and we do not even need a redirect here. If anyone can be bothered to transwiki it then that is another option but my experience of this is that it isn't worth the bother. Polargeo (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor do we include neologisms. Per above Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Twitter, the most likely thing that people are wanting when they type this in. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think folks A) misunderstand WP:NNN and B) are making arguments that would delete Blogosphere. As both are well-sourced and darn similar I'm curious why people seem to think one is okay and the other isn't. And yes, I know about OTHERTHINGSEXIST. I'm more asking if folks suggesting we delete here have reasons that would allow for Blogosphere or if they think both should go. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really say that this is "well sourced". We just don't use dictionary definitions here. Which is exactly what Twittersphere is, read it, all it has is what the word means. Now read Blogosphere, it's a nice page, which covers what the word means, who made it up, who uses it etc. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is well sourced. The article as it stands isn't, but AfD isn't about the current status of the article. It's already in paper books, I think we are in good shape. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess the thing to do is tag it for "rescue" and see if the squad can make it any better. Because despite there being sources, I can find much myself about history etc. So even if it were sourced, it would still remain a simply definition, which we don't really want on Wikipedia - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Twitter or Blogosphere (I don't mind which). This is nothing more than a dictionary defintion. It is borderline whether it would meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion based on what I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 1 July 2009 (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.