Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Techie


 * 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 and soft redirect to wiktionary. I don't know how to do soft redirects, can someone kind do the needful? Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Techie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This unverified article about a slang term is not, in my opinion, appropriate for Wikipedia, considering that it is much more a definition entry than anything else; I would like to see if the community agrees with me. Given its complete lack of references, I think deletion is proper, or possibly the transference of content to another Wiki project. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is much more than a definition. I added a dozen references and could have added many more. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, but I would suggest that this may work best as a disambiguation page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOTDICT hits this article out of the ballpark. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. The list of different definitions for the term is a textbook case of a dictionary entry! But do add the extra definitions to wiktionary:techie. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The techie personality is quite notable. Chris Crawford, for example or Techies as non-technological factors in software engineering?. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Good references! If the name of the article was changed from Techie (sounds like a definition of a word) to Techies (a well-sourced article about the personality type/job description/worldview), would that satisfy people's objections above? --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pluralising doesn't change anything. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and transwiki to wiktionary, or Merge to Nerd (kidding)  Snotty Wong   chatter 19:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious merge target is technician. Nerd is somewhat different as it implies a lack of social graces and physique too.  Boffin is another possibility but that has suggestions of genius which is more than the ordinary techie. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your contribution is the beginnings of the disambiguation page that I suggested. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Over 23 thousand Google news results for the word. Read the titles of the news articles, and you see quite obviously the word is used by notable news sources for a type of person as well as a culture. Its not just a definition, but an explanation of a significant cultural phenomenon.   D r e a m Focus  22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Google News hits for a word are irrelevant. If you can write a coherent article based on significant coverage of the concept of "techies", then great, but at the moment this is a dictionary entry with multiple definitions and no evidence of notability. Don't just !vote and point us at a search - if you want to rescue the article, roll your sleeves up and actually edit it, for a change. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I edit quite often, whenever I feel the article has a need, and I can think of something to add to it. Earlier today I even created a new article.  And the Google news shows this is a valid term, the required Policy of verifiability being met.  It is better as a Wikipedia article than a stripped down Wiktionary entry.   D r e a m Focus  07:24, 14 July 2010 (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.