Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tech geeks


 * 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   redirect to Geek. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech geeks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Intentional use of Wikipedia to mock and disparage a particular type of person, while offering no substantive, objective, accurate definition of its topic. See author's edit summaries for corroboration of intent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into geek. Both pages need lots of work but the topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it such as The Geek Gap; The Geek Manifesto; The Geek Handbook; &c. Andrew (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What would you merge? The arbitrary definition given up front, the original research, the insults, or the gross generalizations? Also, the discussion here isn't about whether there should be a Geek article, but that's the article that your three examples appear to support. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is a new one but people were trying to delete it within 11 minutes. Such hostility naturally has a chilling effect on article development and so is contrary to our policies such as WP:BITE and WP:IMPERFECT.  The issue here is to determine whether to use the delete function, not to dwell upon the first draft which can and has been edited.  One effect of the delete function is to make the title a red link.  This does not seem appropriate here because "tech geek" is a common term for the topic and so should be a blue link, as a useful term for searching and linking. Andrew (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to believe that someone who set out on purpose to write a disparaging article was going to magically change his mind and turn it into a serious one if only given a few hours or days to do so, and to show great concern for that person's tender feelings. But your suggested approach amounts to saying that every time we come upon content that must not be allowed to remain, we are suddenly smitten with the obligation to create a legitimate article that suits the title, whether or not we have any inclination to do so, whether or not we happen to know or care anything about that topic; because if we don't, then the article will remain as is, with its insults and foolishness, etc. Or else we can blank the article, but we aren't allowed to leave an article with a title and no content.
 * If you happen to have felt moved to replace the content of the article, that's lovely. More power to you. Can I just assume, every time I see such an article, that you or someone with similar resolve will happen by in the next few minutes to save it? I'm not going to count on it, and this is why we have a deletion policy.
 * By the way, I have fixed many articles. Articles with content of value and posted with sincere intent. This one was outside the scope of WP:BITE and WP:IMPERFECT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Geek or delete. There's nothing to merge, and there's no need for a fork. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Geek, that article already refers to technology in relation to geeks. No references, the external links aren't about tech geeks, it makes disparaging statements without references. SchreiberBike talk 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Geek for now with Merge any reliable sources. Well, ideally we are supposed to keep an open mind and look for sources, personal opinions amount to bias. Tech geek can be used as a pejorative, satire or accolade depending on it's context, so the article gets some of that right but seems to favor the pejorative image. The article creator is basically a SPA who has created two articles the other one Google Bus which is an "anti-geek" topic, though one clearly notable. Unsurprisingly there are thousands if not probably 10s of thousands of reliable sources that use "tech geek" without reflection about the term itself. So this is difficult to wade through so many sources looking for a sociological treatment of the archetype. I'm sure it's possible though, I've found sources for other more difficult archetypes which took weeks of work. Curiously the very first Google hit when doing the search  is about Wikipedia and its supposed tech geek roots causing gender bias against women. Controversial stuff on this topic. Until we have someone who can make a fair and honest attempt to research, which doesn't look trivial, I don't see how it could be fairly represented. But if someone does, without an agenda, I will change my position and maybe help out. --  Green  C  16:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete per discussion above. Rinkle gorge (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Geek. Its certainly a plausible search term, thus a redirect would be a lot more useful than flat out deletion, but at this point is a unnecessary fork.  Just as a side comment, I find it kind of ridiculous that the nominator was actually being chided for PRODing an obvious WP:ATTACK page "within 11 minutes".  I'm fairly certain its common Wikipedia practice to have unsourced, disparaging material removed ASAP, rather than letting it sit there and hope that eventually someone comes around to change it, just because the article title might have actual use.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2014 (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.