Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Implications of peak oil

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. From the discussion, this sounds like something that needs working out on talk pages. -Splash^talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implications of peak oil

This article discusses solely the implications of a theory presented in another article peak oil or Hubbert peak. The implications of the theory should be discussed in the article itself. -- Jbamb 14:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep purely because the Hubbert peak theory article (Jmabel's peak oil and Hubbert peak are redirects to it) is already too large (34Kb) and there is thus no room to merge this article into that one without losing a significant amount of valuable content. So while in principle it would be a good thing in the practicality it is impossible to merge these 2 articles. Normally a subject is covered in 2 articles when there is not enough space in the original (there are 1000's of examples of this), and that is the case here, SqueakBox 15:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment So long as we do not have a Peak oil theory page, but rather a Hubberts peak theory page, I feel it is sloppy to attribute to one Hubbert, any more than what in fact Hubbert has said. This Implications section is horrid, and everything that Wikipedia is not, however, we need a place for the puss to drain, and if we remove this article, all this lucy-goosey, the sky is falling pseudo-scientific cultish nonsense will be attributed to Hubbert personally - and I see no evidence that he deserves that end. I would suggest a better solution: Create a Peak oil cult page on which to place all the true believers, followers, doomsayers, and fear mongers, under the category of religion which in my opinion is where any conjectures of the end of the world as we know it belong - then do a nice article about Hubbert personally, his one nearly successful prediction, and his other far less successful corollaries and move on. (any takers)? Benjamin Gatti 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rework the whole article so that its no longer propaganda --Bill 16:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Comment I agree with Mr Gatti - a Hubbert article, then a seperate peak oil cult page (although possibly Peak oil cult would not be my choice of title). Am happy to work on this with others. Kcordina 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment some kind of reworking is clearly necessary, I agree that a peak oil theory article separate from or created instead of Hubbert sounds promising, SqueakBox 16:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOVify, per Squeakbox. POV is not a reason for deletion. 'Peak Oil cult' is an obviously POV title, why not work on the current article? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the Hubbert article already has a section on this, and if it's too big that can be fixed by using categories to replace the long, long lists of people in that article - about half of it seems to be lists of one sort and another (including refs, of course). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Agreeing with JzG above. This belongs in the main article space, sinc eit is a natural offshoot of the phenomenon. If that article is long, that is a copy-edit issue. This is an important issue and the closing admin might consider relisting this to canvass more opinions since consensus is largely lacking so far. Eusebeus 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

May I ask then where Mt. Hubbert suggested the that very bad things would happen if/when cheap oil ended? And May I suggest that if he did not say it - then it doesn't belong and that we should tag the true authors of such tripe with their predictions of gloom. You call it a natural outgrowth - but there are many such natural outgrowths, some of with include windmills, solar panels, nuclear plants, bio-diesel, population reduction, urban planning for energy efficiency, and in short where would it end? I respectfully suggest that Hubbert's article should begin and end with Hubbert. Benjamin Gatti 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You have strangely conflated the man with the theory. Implications of a development (good or bad or indifferent - it is a neutral term) are not beyond the scope of an encyclopedic discussion of that topic and that is where they should remain (and presumably be better discussed). I believe you correctly identify the problem with uncoupling this from the main discussion in that it could lead to wide range of essentially peripheral topics. Eusebeus 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the title has conflated the two. Allow me to propose an unconflated title under which every proponant of such ideas could be mention without necessarily painting one of them with too broad a brush. Benjamin Gatti 14:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This point and your comment above are both valid. The problem is with Hubbert peak theory; it seems to me that peak oil theory is sufficiently well-advanced that it is no longer rightly characterised as Hubbert's peak theory even if that is how it originated. We can fix that by renaming the article and refactoring slightly to refer to Hubbert's role. Implications should still be wound in, as the separate article implies in its premises for existence acceptance of the theory, which is begging the question. Whether or not one accepts the theory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 15:22, 10 January 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.