Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocriticism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this  page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technocriticism
Neologism, delete--nixie 06:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and send for cleanup. It has potentially useful and informative content, however needs to be brought down to a less technical level.  Needs work.  --Randy 11:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not even a kilogoogle, and sounds like it comes from Dilbert's Mission Statement Generator. Delete this theory. Radiant_* 13:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the cleanup tag made me chuckle. This article has the prefix "techno-" occurring in every single sentence, sometimes more than once.  Upon reading it, the phrase "high-faluting gibberish" came to mind.  If there is such a thing as "technocriticism", this article does little to describe it, or even to narrow it down from "everything" to any great degree.  I notice that  has edited both bioconservatism and techno-progressivism.  This leads me to believe that, as Radiant! implies, this article is mere buzzword-generation in action.  Further: Reading this definition brought to mind the phrase "art-school wankery" that one Australian coined to describe Neurocam. Delete. Uncle G 16:44, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like semi-random words strung together. Excerpt: "The technoethical dimension of technocriticism undertakes the public deliberative engagement of multiple contending stakeholders to the problems of technological development"  I find it hard to imagine that anyone, anywhere, actually talks or writes like that.  This quasi-gibberish is either a lame joke or an even lamer attempt at a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  17:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I grant the language wasn't the clearest in the world, but is some of this hostility directed at what varieties of critical theory really do care about whether everybody likes it or not, or is it all really about what a terrible writer and fraud I apparently am? I have tried to clean it up a little and would love others to have a go at it who are interested in this stuff.--Dale Carrico
 * You could help by adding some examples, and some references. Kappa 21:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the latest version seem clearer and more useful?--DC
 * Slightly. Kappa 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Gazpacho 09:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.