Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technogeekaphobia


 * 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 per consensus and author request.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Technogeekaphobia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod as non-notable neologism. It's also an unencyclopedic essay. And thinly-veiled spam. Note that prior to prod removal, text contained the statement "The word hasn’t quite made it into the lexicons yet. It will." Article also contains a link to a website that clearly seems to be gearing up for some sort of commercial operation, and formerly contained a link to an associated IT website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising, nonnotable neologism, WP not a dictionary. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NEO and Articles for deletion/Leftosphere. A protologism to the extent it isn't WP:BALLS, and written in an unencyclop&aelig;dic style. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete An essay that's intended to be funny, as well as a plug for a website by that name. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per all the above ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, bring on the snowflakes! Tavix (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as spam, as well as a sort of attempt to communicate. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies folks! I'm the author of the Tecnogeekaphobia article. If I should delete this myself, please point me to the docs for instruction on deletion protocol. Should I delete the text or just wait for an automated deletion process to occur? . I'm obviously new at this. Although Technogeekaphobia is an idea that I intend to promote through books and articles, I was not intenionally spamming. I simply misunderstood the open nature of wikipedia. No harm intended.  I now understand that it violates, in particular, the Crystal Ball theory as well as the others.  When the first delete notice was posted, I edited what I thought was the offending statement, not trying deceive, trying to improve.  Again, apologies to the community. --Dhouchin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Deletion tag added to article by author --Dhouchin (talk) 03:14, 31 January 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.