Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hole in the doughnut effect

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

The result was deletion. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hole in the doughnut effect

Google gives 13 hits for this term. Probably original research of some kind. --Missmarple 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Bewitching, bothering and bewildering. Zargulon 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. The confusing drafting appears to simply be discussing the consolidation effect that large stores/malls have on shopping habits but that's not got anything to do with doughnuts. MLA 12:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incoherent claptrap. -- GWO
  • Keep this article is about an ACTUAL geographical term, it is taight in GCSE level Geography across the UK, simply deleting it because it returns few hits on google, or because it has "nothing to do with doughnuts" would be silly. (Neostinker 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted because you have failed to cite any sources, and they have failed to find any sources. Verifiability is fundamental to what we do, here. If you really learned this in school, then you are in a prime position to cite the books that you learned it from. Please cite sources, as you were asked to a month ago. Uncle G 00:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V/WP:RS; even if this is a legitimate term, the article would need a major rewrite. --Kinu t/c 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up and probably rename. There is another term for this (at least in the US) in Real Estate marketing that I just can't put my finger on at the moment but I've heard it several times. It's a notable concept that deserves an article, it just needs to be cleaned up a bit. Agne 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:V. If this is a real geographical term, please cite some verifiable sources for it. Otherwise it looks far too much like original research to me. Scorpiondollprincess 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The Google test isn't the end-all indicator, but it does show that this subject most likely isn't verifiable. The way the article is written seems to confirm that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this seems to be just a specific example of urban decay. This article doesn't seem to have sufficient information to salvage and merge. And considering how little the term appears to be used, a redirect doesn't seem to make much sense. -- Whpq 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but start again from scratch. Real term, however the article presents it too much in an OR manner. The term (or variation thereof) is also used in education in reference to an issue facing inner city school populations (the gist being younger families tend to move towards the suburbs, leaving a population "hole" that makes it difficult for inner city schools to find students, often leading to their closure). 23skidoo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references given. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if references can be found -- and that should be a trivial case of anyone who is currently in secondary education in the UK opening up their geography textbook at the index and making a note of the relevant page numbers. Seriously, this is taught in every school in one of the major English-speaking countries. The article could be written more clearly, but deleting it just because it's not a term used on the internet would be stupid. See the similar case of the abortive Minibeast AfD -- another common term from British education that was nominated in a rather insensitive way by someone who assumed that any term they hadn't heard of must be nonsense. — Haeleth Talk 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That was not how this article was nominated, however. Uncle G 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is just a form of urban decay, wouldn't a redirect and maybe a paragraph on that article suffice? --Missmarple 13:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was at secondary school in Australia (hopefully still a "major English-speaking country") not too long ago and never learned this term in my geography classes. "Urban decay" and some of the other terms suggested here, most certainly, but not this one. BigHaz 03:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources have been added to this article now, proving that this is not original research and is infact taught at GCSE level. (Neostinker 21:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
    • Please use {{cite book}} and give the exact details (title, author, publisher, year, ISBN, and so forth) of the books. Uncle G 10:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per GWO ("incoherent claptrap"). -- NORTH talk 22:27, 23 July 2006 (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.