Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweetup

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 --JForget 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweetup[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

More neologism shenanigans. This one had already been speedy deleted, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Previous speedy delete seemed appropriate. Would suggest retagging for speedy delete. BFG1701 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Irrelevant neologism.evildeathmath 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 Tweet, tweet! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save it! This is a neologism but it certainly is not a shenanigan. This is a valid topic that interests many people, and it is becoming more and more popular by people starting up groups around the world called "Tweetups" and coming together to do just what people are doing here on Wikipedia... COLLABORATE. I'm a attending a Tweetup tomorrow and the purpose of this Tweetup is to help people build local businesses through Twitter and Social technology.

So I beg to differ... this is certainly a valid topic and should not be deleted. Donaldleegraham (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldleegraham (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save it! Absolutely a valid term and growing in usage all the time. Google reports 69,600 instances as of today. The main distinguishing factor of a Tweetup is that it's promoted on and made up of folks using Twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myklroventine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Myklroventine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it!!! I'm an active twitter user and am taking part in the planning of a Tweetup in Colorado...so it obviously exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondale (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Jondale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above three !votes are from near-sockpuppets or (Jondale) outright sockpuppets. Suspicious! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Raymie Humbert, I am not sure what you are talking about. I created this article cause I'm a part of a Tweetup. There is nothing suspicious about it any of the three posts voting to keep this valid article. Donaldleegraham (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, without prejudice to creation after an RS (Wired, maybe?) has covered the phenomenon. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a neologism (and the sockpuppets certainly aren't helping its case). Leonard^(Bloom) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tweelete as non-notable neologism. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism that's quite ready yet. Check again in a few years. -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "it exists" has never been a valid Keep rationale. Irrelevant neologism. JuJube (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism - Whpq (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Irrelevant neologism, nothing interesting. macy^talk 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 17 July 2008 (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.