Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weird Twitter

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 merge to Twitterature. MBisanz ^talk 11:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Twitter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Social media phenomenon with questionable notability. I am not sure if this meets WP:GNG and think a discussion on this is needed. Laber□^T 21:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as article creator. When I was deciding whether or not to write the article in March, what led me to decide it was notable was the range of sources available, including in-depth articles from NPR, Buzzfeed, Motherboard etc. The term has been in use for several years now - for instance this New York Times article (mentioned in passing) from 2014, this Washington Post article from 2013 and this one from 2012. Searching Google News shows ongoing references (with some false positives) regularly every couple of days. Blythwood (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Blythwood and, if you check this screenshot of Google Insights [1], you'll see that it's a new term that became popular since 2009. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: If I interpret the chart right, it seems that most people who entered the term are false positives who searched for the Twitter account of "Weird Al Yankovic" (if you look at the bottom of the page), which explains why the graph seems to roughly reflect the popularity of Twitter in general. Please correct me if I interpreted this wrong. Also this graph. --Laber□^T 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Twitterature. I highly doubt there will ever be enough material to sustain a proper article. Twitterature already exists and is the perfect article for this fad or whatever the hell this bizarre "alt-lit" phenomenon is. As I've commented elsewhere, lately Wikipedia articles are becoming more and more like the Twilight Zone or Outer Limits. Encyclopedic sanity is in order. Laval (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Twitterature. Add to the list of sources its sustained use in "weird+twitter" The Federalist. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Twitterature as best connected to that, unlikely for its own article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 15 May 2016 (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.