Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)


 * 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 to Technocracy Incorporated. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Technate
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

merge or delete redundant cruftJQ (talk) 08:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, and strong keep. The editor above is going from article to article on related energy/ecomomic issues and the background groups to those issues new and old, and either doing redirects without discussion of making Afd's. This is related to this edit by John Quiggin was reverted he is doing other redirects without discussion also such as here Urbanates (another page redirect without discussion) on related topics. This is noted as problematic in regard to furthering the project regarding information also elsewhere... note here on that subject from Economics project page. An important concept from a notable group. Interesting historic cultural group. Made up of notable people. skip sievert (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable topic which is already discussed in many other articles, see . Johnfos (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No external third party sources to show notability. Appears to be a neologism invented by one group that is no longer active. LK (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the word has been in use for 75 years. The Group that coined this term are still, as far as I've looked, active.AdenR (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A visit to the Technocracy Inc website suggests that their only current activity is a newsletter consisting of reprints of MSM items on energy-related topics.
 * Comment. Not so. Either you are uninformed or are putting up false information to influence the discussion negatively. Here is a link to their site, Technocracy. There is a larger problem here also with tandem editors. The same team of tandem editors is deleting related articles to energy economics, and now the Urbanate article also is trying to be removed... 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. 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) 01:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: @ John Quiggin, if you want to know whether Technocracy still exists or whether there are still Technocrats out there... well you are talking to two right now. There are numerous websites dedicated to Technocracy besides the official site, at least two of them have active discussion groups with many members. So sorry to disappoint you, but the movement does still exist, you may not like it or be interested in it, but some are and we're here too. BTW, I'm not getting involved in any fight that may be going on between you and Skip, I don't know anything about that and have been there before and don't wish to get involved again, if possible. --Hibernian (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I've been informed that I should now comment here too. Again this deletion request is exactly the same as the one that previously failed, and I guess I'll use the same arguments for it as I did then. Firstly, I don't think anyone would doubt that the Technocracy Movement was and remains a notable topic for wikipedia. Bearing that in mind, the idea of a Technate was and is the main aim and goal of that movement, there have been hundreds of thousands of people who will have been supporters of (or at least familiar with) the idea in the early to mid 20th century, and today there are still few thousand who are dedicated to it. The term and idea will be about 76-77 years old now, so it can hardly be considered a neologism. Is it a popular and widely discussed idea? Not now no, but once, yes it was. As I said on the Urbanate discussion, even if Technocracy no longer existed (which is does still), even then the idea would still be of note to historians and scholars, etc. And yes it is hard to find references to the idea on the Internet (other than what the Technocracy groups have put up about it), for the simple fact that this was a concept from well before the net, dig up some old newspapers and magazines from the 1930s and 40s and you will find it, it was fairly significant idea for some time. But no that won't show up on any Googling, so by going on that basis it would seem the idea never existed, but it most definitely did. Again, just because an idea is not popular or widely known today doesn't mean it has no value to an encyclopaedia. --Hibernian (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The result of the previous Afd was "Delete". JQ (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Same logic that allows phalanstère to be an entry should apply here. -- RLV 209.217.195.184 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect or smerge (second choice) to Technocracy article. The term is not notable outside the corporation. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Technocracy Incorporated, then redirect per Guy. Beagel (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Beagel you tandem edit with Johnphos and L.K, and J.Q. those editors are systematically removing references to this notable material for unknown reasons, (pov?), but see the note here on that subject from Economics project page. Accordingly you are a canvassed voice here. See this thread about a possible topic ban for that groups leader.
 * Skip, I would kindly ask you to remove your personal attack and baseless accusations. I never had have any contact with L.K. or J.Q., and never discussed with Johnfos you or your edits. This is irrelevant, but my last contact with Johnfos was several months ago about creation of the article about the Gujarat solar park. Your accusation about tandem edit is a nonsense and your disruptive editorial behavior does not help to achieve the aim of Wikipedia. As of canvassing, I think that as of a member of the WP:Energy, you should knews that there is an automatic notice on the project website about proposed deletions of articles tagged with the project banner. So, once again, please remove your baseless accusations and personal attack. Beagel (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no reason to have individual articles explaining each word of the jargon used by an obscure fringe group in the 1930s. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect per Guy and Beagel. Sifaka   talk  00:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Technocracy Incorporated and redirect. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The sources do not discuss the term with 1 exception. This could be much more concisely described in the Technocracy Inc. page, which would actually be helpful to people who want a concise overview of Technocracy. II  | (t - c) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: Some of the text in this article is just a copy-paste of the main; Since 2 of the resources given for this article have been specifically discussed as questionable-at-best in sources discussion and 2 others seem entirely irrelevant, it leaves little new information not on the main article. In other words, there's no notability case made here that it to be a separate article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I checked all the refs and external links currently in the article, and cannot see mention of the term "technate". I accept that it is probably on the technocracy.org site, but in the absence of independent secondary sources verifying that the term has some current or historical significance, we must conclude that the subject of this article fails the notability requirements. If warranted, merge one or two sentences to Technocracy Incorporated. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources do not appear to show notability of the term. I am concerned that the article is being used as a soapbox for technocracy. Quantpole (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Per above - no use outside of Technocracy. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2009 (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.