- 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely original research which violates both WP:NOT and WP:NOR. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a fanfiction essay. Here, Google the word. Tubezone 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Jayden54 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I knew what I would say on the AfD from the first sentence I read on this article, an essay. --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Blank but Rewrite The term Technomancer has some usages, and as such, probably at least needs to exist as a disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The best we're going to get on this topic is a non-notable neologism dictionary definition. -- IslaySolomon | talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom original research .--John Lake 00:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose I should clarify where I think the Technomancer disambig should cover. [[First, there is GURPS Technomancer and there's also Technomancer Press, Technopathy, and possible groups such as Order of Hermes and the Technomages of Babylon 5. And that's just what I can come up with easily. Anybody else agree with disambiguating? (Current content need not be kept) FrozenPurpleCube 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR. Would have said "keep" if it had been in any way related to RL uses of the term [per FrozenPurpleCube] -- Simon Cursitor 08:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok...new here. My first contrib. I guess I am confused about what is definable as orginal research, even after reading the description. As pointed out, the term has been used in many publications- mostly role playing games- therefore, it is an accpeted term- it is the (my) definition that should be at issue.. But then you see my conundrum is that role playing games are made up from the imagination in most cases. I fail to see how a term in a made-up RPG can ever be accepted...but obviously, according to wikipedia's rules, that is allowed. I also have personal issues understanding the policy, since it seems that for something to be an 'accepted term' either someone on wiki has to have heard of it, or it can be googled or something. If those are the rules, those are the rules- I'm not complaining- just fail to completely understand the rationality. Let's say I write a book, and completely make up a new word. If I can reference it in a book, apparently that makes it 'wiki-able'- is what i am understanding. That makes me want to dig up that old book of sniglets from the 80's....would sniglets be rejected, if referenced from a publication? They are clearly made-up words. This is an honest question- not trying to be a smart-aleck. I don't have any vested interest in this term being on the wiki, except that some people actually follow these philosophies, and call themselves that. It is an underground subculture of sorts- a sort of modern-day religion that is very new...but since it is not referenceable, yet in books or the net, I will concede that my contrib meets OR as defined....my mistake, which i realize in hindsight. However, again since i am new here, I thought I was just *starting a page, that other people would come along in and add the GURPS defs, et al. No big deal- delete if you feel the need.Romshadow 02:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the problem with your definition is that it is pretty limited to your ideas, and you did not demonstrate those ideas as shared by anyone else. That may be valid content for many places on the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place for original thought. That is expressed in WP:OR. To take your sniglet example, I don't know what they are, but if they're in a book somewhere, it's at least possible that said content would be worthy of an article (though if the book isn't all that notable, it might be best just to have the book, and not all the possible things within it). However, you shouldn't create sniglets for Wikipedia. It's like Jedi Knights. Wikipedia isn't the place for George Lucas, or anybody else to write stories about them. Now we can write about the stories with Jedi Knights in them, and have completely valid articles. Do you see the difference? In this case, you seem to have produced thoughts on Technomancers, but haven't related them to any real-world content. My suggestion if you want this article, would be to discuss them in say, the terms of the RPGs they appear in, and the other stories where they are present. If somehow, it became real-world important, then you could have something like Jedi census phenomenon. FrozenPurpleCube 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I think an entry on Technomancy and Technomancers would be useful, as a term used in RPGs, fantasy, etc, the current version contains nothing salvageable. --HarrisX 15:06, 2 December 2006 (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.