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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-14 11:24Z

Twerp[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; prod removed. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please don't delete twerp it is still be worked on, give me 3 days to work on improving it and then delete it if it's not good enough. I'm doing my best on the article. Check Twerps history for the next three days. I promise I will have worked on all of them days, unless something happens to my computer. Hope everyone will agree with this idea.Bloddyfriday 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfDs are generally kept for five days, so you don't have anything to worry about there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition -- Whpq 17:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef and WP:OR. If the author is able to provide an entry that goes beyond a dictionary definition that is sourced I can see changing my mind. However, I really don't see that happening. Arkyan 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary definition only Catwhoorg 18:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Author of Twerp I've taken out some content and am still finishing the project page. Any help or helpful suggestion would be apreciatted at the current moment I must admit that I would vote it deleted, But keep in mind im still working on it. Bloddyfriday 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that what you are looking at is a dictionary definition and it is against Wikipedia policy to have articles that are nothing more than a definition of a term. If you feel that you can expand the article beyond just a definition - for example, information regarding its effect on society, if any, might help - then do so, but remember that policy also dictates you have to properly source your information. Take a peek at some of the other policies and that should help! Arkyan 00:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a dic def in violation of WP:NOT. Nuttah68 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twerp is starting to shape up. Bloddyfriday 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a definition. Bloddyfriday 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done all I can with Twerp make your desicions. Bloddyfriday 19:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A combination of unencyclopedic definitions and original research. Leebo ^T/C 21:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Arkyan's reasons. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After completion it's still more suited to Wiktionary (which incidentally has a pretty good definition, minus the speculative F. Scott Fitzgerald connection).Tt 225 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the moment I have edited the article to eliminate much of the speculation, which was padding out a few ounces of content. I have also added the designation stub; I do not know what stub category this should be. However, if the article is to remain, it needs to be expanded with some more substantive comment, with references i.e sources. Peterkingiron 23:46, 13 March 2007 (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.