Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peaknik
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. NOte that this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging as they feel appropriate. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Peaknik
The term "peaknik" is a neologism, and Wikipedia has a tradition of resisting the creation of pages documenting neologisms unless they have already spread to the mainstream media. Hence, I believe the page should be deleted along with the related, but considerably more elaorate, "doomer" (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and Expand, relevant term associated to the Hubbert peak theory, and notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Piecraft 13:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator Pilatus 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- comment Only 585 googles. RJFJR 16:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge relevant parts with Hubbert peak theory, alongside Doomer above. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, analogous to Doomer. MCB 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as this is the most important debate this century, and Wikipedia has a clear mandate to encourage knowledge of this importance Eclipsenow.org 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- The use of Wikipedia to promote any idea violates the neutrality policy. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Delete" this term has no common use in the mainstream, though clever, it is just a wordplay rather than a definition.
-
-
- unsigned by user:129.78.64.100
-
- Merge with Implications of peak oil, which has been created to help thin out the bloated Hubbert peak theory article. Johntex\talk 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge somewhere, not in common enough use to merit own article. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
