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, discounting Isenhand's comment as unfounded in policy. Sandstein (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technate[edit]

This is a neologism coined by the technocracy movement and lacks any references from outside that movement. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism. asenine ^t/_c 13:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches yield nothing to indicate that the term has been the subject of any discourse or used outside of the movement. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While this term is well known within its own context.. which is people knowledgeable about the Technate design for North America .. it is already referenced well in the Technocracy Incorporated article on wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, it seems the nominator does not have a very good understanding of what the word "neologism" means, it means a newly created word, now if he had taken the time to check, he would find out this word has been in use since at least 1933 (that's 75 years), now I don't see how a 75 year old term can possibly be called a neologism (or "neo" anything). The concept is ridiculous! On that alone, this AFD must be closed and the article kept. But to the wider issue, again think of the length of the parent article if this all has to be squashed in there. It is also BTW, not true to say that it has never been the "subject of any discourse", when Technocracy was first created it sparked significant attention in the American media of the day, and Technocracy did have hundreds of thousands of members in the 1930s, the idea of a Technate was well discussed. Just because you may not be able to find references to this on the Internet does not mean it didn't happen, which just shows the poorness in using Google searches to try to make an argument about it. No, there is simply insufficient justification to delete it, and those who seek its deletion have not even attempted to properly research it. --Hibernian (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pretty good grasp of the English language, thanks. This term does not appear to be in use distinct from the technocracy movement. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh course it's not in use outside the Technocracy movement, what does that matter? The article is in reference to that movement. The term "Dictatorship of the proletariat" is not in use outside the Communist movement, should that term also be deleted? This is simply not a real reason for deletion. --Hibernian (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This is an old word still in use. Isenhand (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been another day, any responses? I think I've proved that this term is not a Neologism, it is not something that was just recently made up, or anything like that. And I've shown that it is not just some irrelevance, it's the core proposal of a movement which is deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia and it thus deserves inclusion. I mean, even if the nominator does not believe it to be relevant today, it is at the very least of historical scholarly interest to Wikipedia (In the same way as something like Atlantropa is). So, for these reasons and those stated above, I would again ask that when the decision is made, it is keep. --Hibernian (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (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.