Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technomancy (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Technomancy: what's the basis for the nom? |
|||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
*::{{U|Zxcvbnm}},[[WP:NEO]] is part of [[WP:NOTDICT]] and not part of [[WP:N]] at all. Did you mean to raise a notability argument in the nomination? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
*::{{U|Zxcvbnm}},[[WP:NEO]] is part of [[WP:NOTDICT]] and not part of [[WP:N]] at all. Did you mean to raise a notability argument in the nomination? [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 04:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' While this article could use a lot of improvement, there are a number of sources which use and discuss the term, e.g. [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Researching_the_Paranormal/Y2nnDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=technomancy+definition&pg=PA276&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.de/books/edition/It_s_a_Miracle/SMZlDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=technomancy+definition&pg=PT17&printsec=frontcover], and [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Magical_Realist_Sociologies_of_Belonging/FGnTDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=%22Technomancy%22+-wikipedia+definition&pg=PT150&printsec=frontcover]. The concepts appearing in those sources as "technomancy" are not identical, which is reflected in the differences between the sections of our article here. [[User:Daranios|Daranios]] ([[User talk:Daranios|talk]]) 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' While this article could use a lot of improvement, there are a number of sources which use and discuss the term, e.g. [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Researching_the_Paranormal/Y2nnDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=technomancy+definition&pg=PA276&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.de/books/edition/It_s_a_Miracle/SMZlDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=technomancy+definition&pg=PT17&printsec=frontcover], and [https://www.google.de/books/edition/Magical_Realist_Sociologies_of_Belonging/FGnTDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=1&dq=%22Technomancy%22+-wikipedia+definition&pg=PT150&printsec=frontcover]. The concepts appearing in those sources as "technomancy" are not identical, which is reflected in the differences between the sections of our article here. [[User:Daranios|Daranios]] ([[User talk:Daranios|talk]]) 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC) |
||
**{{rto|Daranios}} I am not seeing much to salvage here, nor SIGCOV of this topic; worse, your last source that has a few sentences about this seems to discuss not literary genre but some pseudoscience? BUT ''[[Encyclopedia of Fantasy]]'' has an entry on [[technofantasy]], which seems to be the a related concept. In either case, I checked several encyclopedias of sf and such and neither of these terms is used (well, outside technofantasy in EoF). As such, I am afraid I have to lean '''delete''' due to failure to estabilish [[WP:GNG]]. The discussed term "technomancy" doesn't seem to be either discussed or even defined anywhere, and that's a major strike. Do let me know if I missed a source which defines it and discusses it? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 11:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:39, 25 November 2022
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Technomancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable neologism that fails WP:NEO. I tried to find a way to merge it into magic in fiction but couldn't even find sufficient sources for that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Move to draft. The idea of magic interacting with technology is reasonably well-established, but this is clearly not in mainspace article shape. BD2412 T 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- The idea might be established, but Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and not the place for indiscriminate original research. If the idea is not discussed in a detailed fashion then it's probably not fit to be anywhere on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. This is important and makes a cool article. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:ILIKEIT for why that isn't a valid argument in deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep a Google Scholar search shows it widely used in academic literature. There may well be ways to merge this with similar concepts, but outright deletion is almost certainly not warranted. I'll note that 2 of the 3 literary examples that immediately came to mind when reading the article title are covered appropriately in the article, although not with the depth I think is likely supported by RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Without proof that it is widely discussed in reliable sources, a keep vote holds no weight really, and is outright speculation at best. Many things pop up in Google searches, much of it unusable on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:BEFORE for why the failure to find and engage with these uses is your problem, not mine. That is, if you can't click on the scholar link above and see that my statement is accurate, that is your problem, not mine. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Without proof that it is widely discussed in reliable sources, a keep vote holds no weight really, and is outright speculation at best. Many things pop up in Google searches, much of it unusable on Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. A well-established and well-covered concept in fantasy fiction and gaming. Certainly not any sort of neologism. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: I will gladly withdraw my deletion nomination if I see WP:THREE reliable sources that discuss technomancy in significant detail. So far, none have been shown, just assertions that sources likely exist somewhere because people have heard of the word one day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- You do know that WP:THREE is just an essay and has no standing on Wikipedia? WP:GNG is the standard we use.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
-- Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC) - Zxcvbnm,WP:NEO is part of WP:NOTDICT and not part of WP:N at all. Did you mean to raise a notability argument in the nomination? Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- You do know that WP:THREE is just an essay and has no standing on Wikipedia? WP:GNG is the standard we use.
- @Necrothesp: I will gladly withdraw my deletion nomination if I see WP:THREE reliable sources that discuss technomancy in significant detail. So far, none have been shown, just assertions that sources likely exist somewhere because people have heard of the word one day. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Keep While this article could use a lot of improvement, there are a number of sources which use and discuss the term, e.g. [1], [2], and [3]. The concepts appearing in those sources as "technomancy" are not identical, which is reflected in the differences between the sections of our article here. Daranios (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Daranios: I am not seeing much to salvage here, nor SIGCOV of this topic; worse, your last source that has a few sentences about this seems to discuss not literary genre but some pseudoscience? BUT Encyclopedia of Fantasy has an entry on technofantasy, which seems to be the a related concept. In either case, I checked several encyclopedias of sf and such and neither of these terms is used (well, outside technofantasy in EoF). As such, I am afraid I have to lean delete due to failure to estabilish WP:GNG. The discussed term "technomancy" doesn't seem to be either discussed or even defined anywhere, and that's a major strike. Do let me know if I missed a source which defines it and discusses it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)