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 merge and redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism invented by a now largely defunct group 'Technocracy Incorporated'. No external third party sources to show that this term has ever been used by anyone except Technocracy Inc in their literature. Borderline speedy, as even taken at face value, article does not establish why subject is notable. LK (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I started the article and have been asked to comment about this, so here goes. This is really a rerun of the previous discussion ([1]) and the reasons for keeping it are essentially the same. It is not a "Neologism" since it has been around since the 1950s. Yes, it is a concept of Technocracy Incorporated and yes, probably few people today will have heard of it, but that does not make it non-notable. The Technocracy movement was once very notable in having hundreds of thousands of members in the early to mid 20th century and the Urbanate concept was one of the group’s main proposals. Certainly technocracy is not as popular as it once was, but it certainly still exists and is not "defunct", but even if it no longer existed at all, this would still be relevant and interesting in a historical sense. For a similar example of something which is obscure, but notable, look at Atlantropa, probably very few people have ever heard of the idea, and most of those who have think it would never happen, yet the idea still exists and there are a small number of people still advocating it. I may not agree with it (see the talk page), but I would never suggest that it should be deleted just because it is a now obscure or unpopular idea. Of course you will not find hardly any references to the Urbanate concept on the Internet, because it is an idea from well before that age, most of the details are lying in paper form in documents somewhere in the US. What little that has been digitized is available from the links cited in the article. Is this a popular or widespread idea? No (though it once was, to a certain extent). Is it a niche subject? Yes. But, does that mean it must be deleted from Wikipedia? No. I think there is room enough for such articles and no justification to expunge them just because they are little known. Also, it is not true that only Technocracy Inc. uses the term, another Technocracy group, Network of European Technocrats (NET) also uses this concept (as the book search showed). I would further just say that if for whatever reason it does get deleted, I would suggest that the content be merged with the main Technocracy Incorporated article. --Hibernian (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge into Technocracy Incorporated It was a neologism when it was coined, didn't take hold and is now not even an archaism. It deserves a brief mention in the Technocracy article, not an article of its own. JQ (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You could say exactly the same thing about Atlantropa or any number of other obscure old ideas. Atlantropa was of course a new term when it was coined, it never took hold and it could now be regarded as archaic, all of that may be true, but it is not a reason to delete Atlantropa, or this. --Hibernian (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable term which is already discussed in many other WP articles, see [2]. Johnfos (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Strong keep. The same team of tandem editors is deleting related articles to energy economics, and now the Technate article also... Led by user LK, and JQ. L.K. is currently under consideration for being topic banned as to editing economics related articles due to bias, topic ban?, and is wikihounding information related to this article also... note here on that subject --> from Economics project page. Also Noted Johnphos goes from page to page with this tandem edit group and has also been tandem editing with them as to pov and also stalks any edits concerning this subject in general. This points out the larger problem of tandem mainstream editors wanting to get rid of issues they are not in agreement with. User Johnphos's wikistalking repeated behavior. skip sievert (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This level of documentation would support a modern subject. I don't see why it is proposed to delete a historical one. Miami33139 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or smerge to Technocracy article. This term does not appear to be notable outside the corporation itself. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason to have individual articles explaining each word of the jargon used by an obscure fringe group in the 1950s. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What makes this group obscure and fringe? As far as the notable people involved in the group and Even a Time Magazine article from the 30's, I just recently read [3], Prove this group to be a fairly notable historical group. Why would time magazine write an article on a obscure fringe group? AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I really don't see any reason for deletion.AdenR (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Technocracy Incorporated, then redirect per Guy. Beagel (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not at all a relevant criticism in this case. The article does not attempt to make future predictions, it is a specific engineering proposal by a group, in exactly the same way as the Arcology article is. It does not in any way claim that Urbanates will be build, nor even that they should be built. It simply outlines what the Technocracy group proposes, I made quite sure when I started the article that it was NPOV and I stand by that. --Hibernian (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt the article's neutrality, just its notability. Without a crystal ball I can't see circumstances changing to make it notable. If there was progress in that direction, this could be an interesting Did you know? Before arcologies there was Urbanate which in some ways anticipated their rise factoid. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect per Guy and Beagel. Sifaka ^talk 00:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Only 1 real source, the 1955 digest article. This could be much more concisely described in the Technocracy Inc. page. II | (t - c) 22:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable, indicated source is SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article appears to be an attempt to make the views of a small group seem important. That's fine, but only if independent secondary sources verify that the term has some general significance. Delete or merge to parent article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Acknowledged neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the sources do not discuss the term. Only publication that may do so is not independent. Own searching does not reveal any use of the term, beyond what is in wikipedia mirrors. Appears to be a neologism that has fallen out of use. Given the lack of use of the term, I do not think a redirect is apprpriate. Quantpole (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2009 (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.