Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-tech


 * 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. WP:NPASR –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Post-tech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NEO. Term does not appear to be in common use. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I agree this is a non-notable neologism, not clearly defined in any sources I can see. Change to weak delete, see below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm new here, so I don't know the exact rules about the deletion of articles. However, I do see a definition in this ON/OFF book which is as a PHD thesis a scientific piece of work and a good summary of the current debate. Further, it's mentioned in the DIE ZEIT article (it's the German NYT) which did apparently run as the main article of the issue. Even it's not mentioned widely over the web, it's mentioned by very reliable sources. Can concepts become part of Wikipedia only once they are regularly used? Mljakubowski (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for the German newspaper usage, but the book you found does indeed define it (in the future rather than commercial bookseller please link to page view on Google Books if possible, like this: ). The source of their definition seems to be, a German language document on whose reliability again I cannot comment. That's a good start, but please read WP:NEO and WP:GNG. For new terms we need more than 1-2 sources, a more widespread use would help. If you can show this term used in let's say 5 or so more reliable sources, preferably English (so I can read them), I'd be ready to change my vote to keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * References

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not wikitionaryL3X1 (distant write)  22:04, 19 April 2017 (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.