Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technophile

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 - kept - SimonP 00:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technophile

Article makes some rude, ignorant, and subjective observations about technophiles, with a strong suggestion that they suffer from a form of mental illness. Soapbox, original research, just plain dumb. ---Isaac R 03:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Not necessarily biased; your definition may be of someone who explores technology as a hobby, whereas this definition defines it as an obsession that interferes with daily life. Just because you don't agree with this definition doesn't mean it's wrong. Give it a lighter definition if you see fit. CP 0335, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If it were just a definition, there wouldn't be an issue -- we'd just transwiki it over to Wiktionary:. But it's not a definition, it pretends to document a mental condition that isn't widely recognized. ---Isaac R 03:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A good definition already exists in Wiktionary, and this is rather odd original research/soapboxing. android↔talk 04:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 06:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Congrats, You have been doing great service by your delete votes, as I find there lies your main contribution to wikipedia. I would love to see you expanding at least few words of this article so as to give inspiration to others to come forward. Thanks in advance.--MissingLinks 06:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Highly POV as it is, and I can't imagine a legitimate definition being more than a wiktionary candidate of "one who loves technology." Postdlf 07:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• This is a dicdef plus some speculation. Delete, replace with redirect to Geek. Radiant_* 09:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, soapbox, original research. --Angr/_comhrá 09:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but get rid of the anti-tech bias. Jamyskis 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User has ~40 edits
    • Based on a limited sampling, user has made 40+ useful edits, including many rational votes to various articles on VfD. IMO, this isn't our typical low-edit VfD voter, and as such, his/her vote(s) should probably not be discounted. android↔talk 17:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Radiant. Anything that isn't dicdef in that article at this time looks like conjecture and essay to me. Willing to change vote if any real research or reference material is added to show that it is a real condition rather than an adjective. --Unfocused 14:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Technophilia" is definitely not an officially recognized mental disorder. Individual mental health professionals might consider it as a valid diagnosis, but I've never heard of any doing that. The assertion that it is a disorder certainly shouldn't stand without reference to mental health literature.---Isaac R 15:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I could even see keeping it if it's proposed as an officially recognized disorder in a verifiable way, or by someone prominent in the mental health field. --Unfocused 16:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I completely agree -- all mental conditions that have any kind of professional or official recognition deserve Wikipedia space. But a non-professional's opinion that something is a mental condition does not. ---Isaac R 16:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but re-write to make it informative. It needs work. Sunray 18:31, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
• Comment. Compare this article with Emo kid. ---Isaac R 18:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and re-write. Eixo 22:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite how? It's subjective pseudoscience. Rewriting it isn't going to change that. ---Isaac R 06:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this is accepted psychology terminology. Quale 18:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary and merge what useful information there is with geek. This is obviously a legitimate word, but it is suitable only as a dictdef. The article describes the stereotypical nerd or geek, so what useful information is in it should be merged there. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:25, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
• Note: this is already at Wiktionary, and this isn't any better than that definition. --Dmcdevit 23:15, 18 May 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.