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 keep. CitiCat ♫ 02:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment verging onKeep - I am not sure about this: I don't seem to see actual mysticism, it is made clear that the article is about "an imaginary or fictional category of magical abilities". It seems more like an admissible article about a recurring theme in science fiction and fantasy, not too dissimilar, but in scope, from Time travel or Shapeshifting, say. Goochelaar 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my previous remark to strike the "verging on" and make it a full-fledged "keep". --Goochelaar 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the difference is that time travel and shapeshifting are widely used and established scifi concepts. Technomancy isn't, and the term to describe it is a neologism. I don't know about the games listed, but nowhere on Buffy or Angel is the term "technomancy" used. - Koweja 13:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting curious about this, I did some serching around and found:
it is not quite a neologism; there is at least a short story by a Steve Martindale titled "Technomancy" (see here) published in 1990;
as for role-playing games and the like, the term is used not less than one hundred times just in the rpg.net domain;
there are several items tagged "technomancy" in del.icio.us and similar sites, and I understand that the term is widely, jocularly used to describe a kind of attitude towards one's computer.
Hope this helps, Goochelaar 15:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure about the current state of the article, but it is a term used to describe some organizations in books, and an existing fantasy terminology. It might be appropriate to redirect this to the existing disambig at Technomancer or to relocate that here. Unless some good references can be found defining the term at least in how it's used. FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. The term technomancy/technomancer is in use. I suppose the question is if this can be shown with appropriate references. I'd lean towards keep at this time as the justification is incorrect ("technomancer" has been used for at least a decade) and no attempt has been made to address any problems (like tagging the entry asking for sources) - I'd like to see more effort put into trying to fix the entry before moving on to an AfD. (Emperor 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Added two references, one from 1996 is purely pop culture so you may disparage it but it exists and I can probably find more from that source if quantity is what you need. Despite being best known as a sci-fi writer Arthur C Clarke is a respected as a scholarly source his third law of prediction dates from 1962 and asserts that a technology beyond the understanding of an observer will have the appearance of magic.KTo288 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.