Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomer (2nd nomination)

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Despite that very little was done to refute the issues that the nominator raised, the fact that there are no other delete opinions whatsoever means that this is the only valid outcome. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doomer

Doomer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The term is a valid term, but it fails WP:N. According to WP:N, a topic will be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage means sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Although google search shows many ghits, there are not enough sources which describes this term in detail. No hint in google book search [1] and google news search [2]. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep A google of '"doomer" peak oil' shows 18000 pages, showing that it is an existing cultural group. It seems to be an in-house term, as well as an epithet, and as such has not been picked up by the media. This in itself should not count against it, since the use and definition of the term is documented in the 18000 existing pages. There are other terms that are related, such as Peaknik and Cornucopian. Peaknik and Doomer were redirected to Hubbert peak theory at one point, and the information moved there, but then the information was removed from that article because that's a technical article. NJGW (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply Don't just point at a policy. Explain what makes you think it's not notable. Also, see Wikipedia:Search engine test. NJGW (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No significant coverage in reliable source. What made you think the term notable? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Science (journal) printed an article in 2004 discussing "doomsters", which is obviously a misuse of the term "doomers". If only Wikipedia had been there for them. NJGW (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article is appropriate for retention, based upon the growing public interest in both Peak Oil and Survivalism. Although the terms Doomer and Peaknik are not widely used in the mainstream, they are very well known in Peak Oil circles, and to a lesser degree in Survivalist circles.Trasel (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: You failed to provide some references with significant coverage on the term. This is the main issue here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to closing administrator: I hope the closing administrator will read my rationale for the deletion. The term is used, no one denying it, but the term fails WP:N, the term has no significant coverage in some reliable sources. The "Keep" votes simply ignored WP:N and WP:RS issue. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per NJGW. The subject seems to be notable enough.Biophys (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Yet you failed to explain how the term is notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.