Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technosexual

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 Keep.

August 2004 discussion on Votes for deletion

Delete

Delete This article strikes me as fluff, with the external link seeming to have little to do w the subject matter. (rm'd unnecessary comment) Sam [Spade] 03:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is another neologism, and it has a "see also" section with other neologisms. I'm sure that someone can be aroused by tools, but this seems like original research. Geogre 04:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. While the 4,000 Google results are probably an exaggeration of the term's scope, the topic is nonetheless a valid one: some generally agreed-upon definition does exist. —No-One Jones 13:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The presence of an accepted definition does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather it might be support for it going in a dictionary. This article needs substance. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Idiotic neologism dicdef. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Cribcage 14:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. The external link leads to a website that promotes technosexuality. The man who created this website redefined the term 'technosexual.' If this article, which has been edited to remove reduntant and plagiarized content, is deleted because it seems "fluffy," the Metrosexual article should deleted as well according to this new standard... Loremaster 15:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• "Metrosexual" unfortunately has enough stupid people saying it for us to be forced to have a stupid article about it. "Technosexual" has not gathered enough twits yet. Neither word actually refers to anything in the real world. Some people just think the words sound cool. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• See my two folllowing entries below. Loremaster 16:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The substance of the metrosexual article is from discussing its popularity and publicization in the media. The term itself, however, is not uniquely substantiated; it is much like dandy and fop and would properly belong in an article that includes all such terms if not for this fad. Unless it is demonstrated that there is some substance to the term technosexual, by adding such substance to the article, technosexual should be deleted. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism dicdef. I had heard of "metrosexual" before seeing it on Wikipedia. The same is SO not true of "technosexual", and since I work for a dot com in Silicon Valley, I think I'd be one of the first to hear it if it was in common usage (my co-workers go on regular 'field trips' to ogle the goodies at Frys Electronics). Actually, I'd nuke cyberprep as well--to quote from that article, "Cyberprep...is a seldomly-used term..."--then why do we have it? Niteowlneils 16:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• If encyclopedias only contained terms that were used often, they would be very small and sometimes useless. The term 'cyberprep' is mentioned in many cyberpunk role-playing game sourcebooks so I have edited out that comment from the article. Loremaster 16:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• From AlterNet: Enter the Technosexual Although it seems like a made up word just to give the "M" word some competition, Montalvo didn't invent the technosexual. As far back as the 1970s, fetishists and intellectuals have equated the term with robo-rumbustication. Or, as defined by the Alt.Sex.Fetish.Robots FAQ, "Technosexuality is a word used to get away from the oft-confusing acronym, A.S.F.R., which refers to the sexual interest in machines, robots, androids, gynoids and other sexual devices not really occurring in real life." Based on this reported fact, I strongly conclude that the Technosexual article should NOT be deleted. On the contrary, it should be expanded. Loremaster 16:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: As idiotic as it may sound, the word already spread into Turkish; some popular Turkish magazines have published extensive articles on "technosexual" and a Google search on the Turkish word "teknoseksüel" reveals some, though few results. There is already an entry in Urban Dictionary. Obviously it is currently a stub, but I am sure it can be expanded into a good full-blown article.--leandros 22:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: It's a dictionary definition with some potential. While I completely agree with Chameleon about it being a stupid word, that's not our problem. It seems to be attracting people to use it just like metrosexual, and if that happens we need to document it. If it dies out quickly (which is admittedly likely, as most of those google hits pointed to the linked site) it could be revoted upon. Rico 23:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I hate neologisms like this, but even I will have to admit that metrosexual is notable. I'm not convinced that "technosexual" shares this notability (in English, not Turkish), and in any case, what we have now is nothing but a dicdef. At best, it should be transwikied to the Wiktionary, but that's assuming there's more to this word than its obvious definition. I doubt there is. --Ardonik 05:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a word and if metrosexual merits a place on Wikipedia so does technosexual. Also see: http://www.wordspy.com/words/technosexual.asp. Don't transwiki, this can be expanded! -SocratesJedi 07:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Dmn 15:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Tentative Keep. While I do think it is a stupid word and strongly question the ability to turn this into encyclopedic content, there are a whole range of technical words that are not well-known, but still can merit an entry. Examples may be a whole range of the -phobia's and -pheliac's. If someone is able to expand this into a more relevant article with some actual information, I think it should be kept. If no one has expanded on it in, say, 1 or 2 months, I think it should be put up for vote again. Skyler 01:55, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

• Concur- it's a silly idea, but a real one, and probably noteworthy & widespread enough to merit an article. Keep. -FZ 12:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The -phobia's and the -pheliac's can warrant articles by reason of medicine and known symptoms, treatments, etc. or they should properly be merged if there are many with similar pathologies. Technosexual, however, is no medical term and there is no substance in the article. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Tεxτurε 15:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary (where they can decide if they want to keep this neologism or not). Rossami 13:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's a relatively old neologism. The article should be expanded instead. Loremaster 17:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and expand the article. I actually know a guy on IRC who purports to be a technosexual and as such I had heard of this before reading of it on Wikipedia. I don't think the article really defines it properly, though. Andre 08:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep does need to be expanded. --Vik-Thor 03:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Notes for two of the biggest arguments brought forth: 1) that there is an accepted usage of the word does not warrant the inclusion of the word in an encyclopedia. Some substance that is appropriate to an encyclopedia, that is not redundant, and that does not properly belong in another article like "gender role" or "abnormal sexual attractions", must be added to the article in order to provide some reason for keeping it. 2) The presence of the metrosexual article does not indicate that technosexual should be included. The metrosexual article is included because of the high use in the media and popular recognition and use. Metrosexual contains almost no neutral, non-sourced information about so-called "metrosexuality" and is almost entirely devoted to its popularity in the media. Without this fame and the media information, that article would properly be deleted. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Taking everyone's comments into account, I will work to expand this stub with susbstance appropriate to an encyclopedia as soon as possible. Loremaster 19:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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.