Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technopeasantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Re-creation as a redirect to Frank Herbert wouldn't be amiss. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technopeasantry

Technopeasantry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Doesn't seem to be a notable term outside its use in Dune. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete Disagree about being non-notable. Also, this term did not actually appear in Dune. It was a term used by Frank Herbert to describe his views on one of the major themes running throughout much of his work, the use/abuse/misuse of technology. Mkc3 21:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) mkc3
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 07:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as this article is a WP:POV fork from the article Dune (novel). --Gavin Collins 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per EyeSerene. Or else take it to Wiktionary. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/question - what type of sources are needed for this to be a Wikipedia article? I find three different meanings for 'technopeasant': the original Herbert usage (which is cited); the 'pixel-stained technopeasant wretch' usage (which is described on at least one Ansible page); and as a synonym of 'technophobe' (as described in The Urban Dictionary and this conference paper). So at the least I'd say transwiki to Wiktionary; but I think there could be the makings of a reasonable Wikipedia article too, preferably renamed as 'Technopeasant'. --Zeborah 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as term has recently accquired a new meaning. A good article could possibly be made out of this Lurker (said · done) 10:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you have a problem with lack of references then you find those references. The easiest thing is to nominate for deletion. M.V.E.i. 16:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article states that the (new) misuse of the term has "received far more coverage than the original term." That is a claim that requires verification, and the examples given in the article (an offhand use by an author in an interview) don't qualify as significant third-party coverage. The burden for verifibility and notability lies with the author/maintainer, and this term is not a significant internal aspect of any noted work. ◄Zahakiel► 19:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its easy to delete, harder to put in the effort to edit, source and improve. That the term has a history, is used and has found recent new applications means that it is notable. That none of those in favour is willing to put in the effort to improve the article, is no reason to delete.KTo288 12:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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.