Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technosexual (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The result was nomination withdrawn, so speedy keep.  Jus tin  (c)(u) 21:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Technosexual

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It appears to be a dicdef for a neologism. I wasn't sure about whether to nominate it, as it seems to have reliable sources. But better safe than using bad cliches.  Jus tin  (c)(u) 04:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The person who nominated this article for deletion concedes that it has reliable sources. --Loremaster (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article does have references. It could stand a bit of development. Sf46 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep well-attested on Google but really just a slang dicdef. JJL (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It's just a slang dicdef. Not only that, it's a newer neologism. Delete per neologism.Undeath (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Transwiki to Wikitionary could be another idea having said that I remain fairly neutral on this matter can see positives of transwiki and deletion and positives of just leaving as is. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just a stupid slang term. I don't think Wiktionary needs it either. Let it stay on Urban Dictionary or something. 24.129.232.72 (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted, uses reliable sources, and they are not just invocations but define the term and talk about its adoption. It's rather mannered to my ear, but meets WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced article that is more than just a dictionary definition. Davewild (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep "Not sure" and "just to be safe" are inadequate grounds for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2008 (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.