Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Doomer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My rationale was obvious, peaknik forums are growing exponentially as is the mainstream media's awareness of the peak oil issue. The terms are already within a community which is receiving growing public attention. The Australian national youth radio station associated with our ABC has recently been placing some attention on the issue, which is becoming a growing international dialogue. The community's own language and terminology is an essential part of quickly clarifying elements of a complex and enormous debate.

What constitutes mainstream media? Why does a series of enormous forums not qualify as mainstream media? Why is it that one inventor or expert on a subject might devise a new word for some new computer software, for example, but a community of tens of thousands have their own self-referenced terminology banned?

I would strongly suggest that doomer is a fairly new "word" playing on connotations of a very traditional word, doom, and that a mainstream media source already exists. Doomers are not merely Neo-Malthusians, as the issue does not exclusively play on population relationships to agricultural output. The essential ingredient of peak oil and the end of cheap oil, and the complex interactions between the "ecology of money" are all unique to Doomers. If peaknik and Doomer are both rejected it will only serve to make Wikipedia less comprehensive and cutting edge — and may even slow one of the most important debates we are to have this century. On the other hand, if Wikipedia allows these terms to continue, it may be influential in shaping public awareness and enhancing the chances for success in dealing with this crisis.

And the word is more commonly used and more appealing than trying to pronounce than "Lifeboater" which is another development. "Peaknik" also works better than "Powerdowner".

"Red tape" like this makes me lose my Peaknik focus, and tempts me to view the world through a Doomer paradigm.

The point of the Articles for Deletion process is to discuss these issues. Just because a page is nominated for deletion does not mean that it will be deleted.

Since you are new, and unfamiliar with the process. Let me give you a few pointers. First off your reasons for saying the article should be kept belong on the project page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomer rather than this talk page. The articles for deletion page is intended for discussion about what to do with the article. This talk page is intended for discussing problems in the process that might arise during a particular discussion (such as vandals or sockpuppets). As such the talk pages associated with articles for deletion pages are in general rarely used.

Secondly the normal format for comments is:

* '''Keep/Delete/Merge/Comment/etc'''.  Explantion, followed by a signature (generated by typing ~~~~).

The "*" produces a bullet to delineate each person's remark, and the first comment summarizes a person's position. Note that the triple quotes ''' produce bold text, e.g. '''keep''' -> keep. The explanation portion can be as long as necessary.

You probably want to copy over what you have written here to the main project page, and add a keep and a signature (e.g. ~~~~ -> Dragons flight 13:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)).

For an example of an existing AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon attacks.

Dragons flight 13:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)