Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twotch

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Twotch

Another made-up word used by only six people and therefore unencyclopedic. JeremyA 03:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete As with my other pages recklessly attacked by these users, the amount of users has increased dramatically from 6, is not neologism as the word is prominent yet recently introduced to Wiki, conflicts with no biting of newcomers, civial regulations, etc. AND the comment of only used by six people is not stated in the article and is therefore unreasonable.
- Unsigned by 24.238.51.35. All but one edit are to this article or to Riggensob or The Membrane, both of which are also on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 04:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unused neologism. 16 Google hits, and none look relevant at a glance. —Korath (Talk) 04:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as for VfD:Riggensob. android↔talk 04:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence has surfaced of this word having any sort of widespread use. The fact that some fictional characters (e.g., Harry Potter) have Wikipedia entries is no justification for including this one; unlike the Twotch, Harry Potter actually has a sizable number of fans who are interested in him. -- Dan -- 05:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non notability = delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:21, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless wide use is referenced. Submitting articles to VfD for valid reasons is not a personal attack. If you can prove this is not a neologism by providing references, you can save the article. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dtobias, MacGyverMagic, and Korath. I'd encourage the creator of this (and the other Membrane-related pages) to learn a little bit more about what Wikipedia is and is not, and to channel his obvious enthusiasm into more appropriate contributions. --Jacobw 16:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Articles about words belong in Wiktionary. However, an article about this purported word does not, because it does not meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion. As with "riggensob" there's no evidence that this word exists at all. (The only occurrences found by Google Web are either telegraphese contractions of "to watch" or mis-spellings of twitch. Google Groups has 1 result, a name.) Articles about the people/places/concepts/things denoted by the words belong in Wikipedia. However, as this article itself states, the thing denoted by this word is a figment of one person's imagination, and is thus (to say the least) unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 18:28, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as admitted vanity neologism. -- Infrogmation 19:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.