Deletion of Technomancer

Comment: fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: the problem with your definition is that it is pretty limited to your ideas, and you did not demonstrate those ideas as shared by anyone else.  That may be valid content for many places on the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place for original thought.  That is expressed in .  To take your sniglet example, I don't know what they are, but if they're in a book somewhere, it's at least possible that said content would be worthy of an article (though if the book isn't all that notable, it might be best just to have the book, and not all the possible things within it). However, you shouldn't create sniglets for Wikipedia.  It's like Jedi Knights. Wikipedia isn't the place for George Lucas, or anybody else to write stories about them.  Now we can write about the stories with Jedi Knights in them, and have completely valid articles.  Do you see the difference?  In this case, you seem to have produced thoughts on Technomancers, but haven't related them to any real-world content. My suggestion if you want this article, would be to discuss them in say, the terms of the RPGs they appear in, and the other stories where they are present.  If somehow, it became real-world important, then you could have something like Jedi census phenomenon
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The best we're going to get on this topic is a |non-notable |neologism |dictionary definition
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NEO||WP:DICDEF)

Comment: Per nom |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)