- 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 no consensus. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technogypsie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, possible original research; article is solely reliant on sources associated with the subject and the coining or appropriation of the term. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Digital nomad, which seems pretty much the same thing and appears more common[1][2][3][4][5]. Similar concepts exist under a lot of different names, e.g. "21st Century minimalist"[6], "technomad"[7] or "techno-nomad"[8] but we only need 1 article. This title with the "-sie" spelling is one of the less common names for the phenomenon, so you'd want to merge/move it elsewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe some overlap between the two but they don't seem quite the same, plus the latter article is also rather sparse, poorly sourced and of questionable notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not identical but they're sufficiently similar that they can be treated in the same article (in essence they're similar but Technogypsies are more new-agey while digital nomads have less spiritual baggage). I agree that Digital nomad isn't the greatest article, but I listed more sources above which indicate room for improvement. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe some overlap between the two but they don't seem quite the same, plus the latter article is also rather sparse, poorly sourced and of questionable notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 18:59, 20 September 2012 (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.