Talk:tech worker

RFD discussion: February–April 2021
SOP &mdash; surjection &lang;??&rang; 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Imetsia (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. A similar example includes sex worker, which is broader than other specific terms. Do you have advice on what would make this a better entry? Shushugah (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Mainly because we've kept sex worker. But I won't lose any sleep if it ends up getting deleted. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the point of this is that e.g. "tech worker" =/= "technical worker (in any industry)" then I would keep as non-obvious from parts, but the definition is very poor, and the word "tech" links only to an entry with multiple senses. Mihia (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm having second thoughts about this, as it would seem to open the door to e.g. tech world, tech stocks, tech news, tech company etc. etc. Perhaps the answer is to improve at tech. Mihia (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unlike the performance of a sex worker, this tech isn’t anything specific, and if there is a specific concept then this is not conspicuous from the definition yet so this must be deleted for the uselessness of such a definition – we delete entries as sum of parts because they do not provide information additional to the parts. Fay Freak (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Replying here, since the delete responses are similar. In the case of sex worker, it exists not as a trivial compound of sex and worker, but a term that was created as an alternative to very specific and derogative term prostitute. More mundane examples include health worker, careworker, and of course doctor, nurse, ancillary staff still exist. In the case of tech worker, I think it's sufficient to say it's someone who works in tech, but the entry can also expand on distinction/inclusion/exclusion of say programmer, systems analyst but also other job descriptions often not included in those, such as uber driver, gig worker and other workers in the tech industry. Per Criteria for inclusion, here is a Google scholar showing abundant usage of the word across multiple countries/contexts.
 * I agree that "sex worker" is not completely obvious from "sex" + "worker", but it is less obvious to me that "tech worker" is anything more than "tech" + "worker", with "tech" used in a general sense that could modify many nouns, and that should be covered better at "tech", with examples given there such as "tech company", "tech industry", "tech worker" etc. Mihia (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I have tried to beef up the entry at tech. Mihia (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So delete. Mihia (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete since it's anyone who works (a worker) in tech. Reminds me of the recently deleted "gay man", any man who is gay. It's a common collocation, that's all. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The comment above about BGC results is not germane, attestation is not in question. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; Dentonius 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Vote is stricken. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems SoP. No OneLook reference has it. It doesn't have any citations, let alone some that support the definition. I expect this term to be attestable in different senses, reflecting the ambiguity of the word tech, which could be related to skills; industries or groups thereof; IT only, possibly in any industry; etc. DCDuring (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted. Imetsia (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)