Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomer

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 merging content. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doomer

User:Eclipsenow.org has put considerable work into this page in only a span of hours since its creation, and parts of it deserve to be merged into Hubbert peak theory; however the term "doomer" itself 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 itself should be deleted along with peaknik (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: I support some form of merge/rename proposal as suggested below. Dragons flight 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a notable term which I have heard and seen in use in accordance to the article's definition. I can see this as being a relevant encyclopedic article. Piecraft 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork of Hubbert peak theory. Pilatus 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per Pilatus. At best, they deserve a few lines in Hubbert peak theory. - Hahnchen 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The author of this, very much new to the wiki experience, mistakenly posted his arguments to the talk page of this page. Dragons flight 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant parts with Hubbert peak theory. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge as suggested. Groeck 22:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the terms peaknik and doomer are in common use and are just beginning to break through into the mainstream media, and they define different issues to the terms "peak oil optimists and peak oil pessimists" which raises matters of WHEN oil peaks, not what it MEANS. Don't merge as the complicated doomer scenarios and worldviews attached to the Doomer paradigm could grow in this article, and would terribly inflate the Hubbert's peak scientific theory of oil depletion, with no end of debate. Having a seperate entry for Doomer allows the Doomer crowd to focus their attention on the definition of their paradigm in that entry, rather than endlessly swelling and debating the various collapse scenarios under Hubbert's peak, which actually deals in the scientific facts of oil depletion. The Doomer article has only just started. I can see it swelling to 4 or 5 times the current size, as various collapse scenarios are expanded on, and expert Doomer authors such as Heinberg, Kunstler, Duncan, and others are quoted or write for themselves in the Wiki Doomer entry. The peak oil question is one of the most important questions society faces this decade, and it may be even more immediate than global warming. The potential for severe economic pain, or even chaotic doomer collapse, is real. Surely the importance of the subject demands that this entry remains, even if the term does not strictly meet the Wikipedia guidelines this month? Because it WILL be in the mainstream press sometime in the next 12 months, I guarantee it. Adopting this term early will help countless new peakniks decide where they fall on the peaknik / doomer spectrum, and actually facilitate this discussion in the media, allowing Wikipedia to be an influential "mover and shaker" in the cultural debate, as well as maintaining intellectual credibility of describing something that is already established. Adopting this term is not "making stuff up" but just being slightly ahead of the curve. (Interesting pun in the context of Hubbert's peak.) Surely this is in Wikipedia's best interests? Eclipsenow.org 9:39 Sydney Australia, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Eclipsenow, since most of our concern stems from the use of what are very new words, I'm wondering if you could write about the material you want to discuss without using them? The Hubbert peak article is already a substantial 48k and I would think there is plenty of room for it to semi-organically grow into other articles like post peak oil scenarios or social responses to peak oil, or whatever. As long as you can write verifiable content in accordance with our neutral point of view policy, I think the encyclopedia as a whole would welcome more content on this issue. I do think however think that most of us would prefer you not consistently use the terms "doomer" and "peaknik". It might be more cumbersome for you to write "those expecting social collapse", or similar phrases all the time, but it is better from an encyclopedic point of view. Also, if you wanted to mention in passing that they are "sometimes called 'doomers'", or something similar, at the start of a discussion on apocalyptic views of peak oil, I wouldn't particularly mind. It is just that Wikipedia doesn't want to be leading the charge to adopt new terminology that isn't already well established. If you do feel up to writing on apocalyptic views of peak oil or something similar, I suggest you talk to the people at Talk:Hubbert peak theory. Most topics, when they expand into multiple articles, do so by removing chunks of an existing large article and growing from that, so it is good to talk to the people that have already been working on this topic in order to coordinate. Dragons flight 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is meant to document existing trends in a neutral fashion, not to promote any particular idea. ~~ N (t/c) 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. (Actually, at Wikipedia we like being slightly behind the curve, intentionally.) MCB 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, as suggested above, to post peak oil scenarios where a lot of the weight of the Hubbert's Peak article could be shed. A very brief summary of the various positions might remain on the Hubbert's peak page, with the full details being spelt out in the post peak oil scenarios page. Sorry for any trouble — I'm new here. :-) Also, I wouldn't dream of renaming it myself... I'll break something. But if someone else were to rename the "Doomer" article, I'd be very grateful and encourage concise but lively definition writing in the post peak oil scenarios page rather than bloating the Hubbert's Peak page overly. Hubbert's peak is about when oil peaks, the Scenarios page is about what it might mean. Eclipsenow.org What time zone am I meant to include here? 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The word "Doomer" is a highly emotive and judgemental term that obfuscates the measured realism behind the thinking of some of the people who might be shoe-horned into this category.81.136.10.171 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Implications of peak oil, which has been created to help thin out the bloated Hubbert peak theory article. Johntex\^talk 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Very notable neologism, but not deserving of own article. ~~ N (t/c) 20:35, 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.