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

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 redirect to Peak oil. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peaknik

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Peaknik Articles for deletion/Peaknik (2nd nomination)
Peaknik (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:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep A google of the term shows 13000 pages, showing that it is an existing cultural group. It seems to be an in-house term (though one editor claims it to be pejorative), 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 13000 existing pages. I don't support merging with Peak oil as that is a very technical article and would not benefit from a cultural discussion. There are other terms that are related, such as Doomer 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 another technical article.
Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:51, 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) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable source. What made you think the term notable? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:20, 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 term Peaknik is not widely used in the mainstream, is is very well known in Peak Oil circles, and to a lesser degree in Survivalist circles. The term Peaknik is now cropping up in the mainstream mediad. For example, see this recent New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html (On the second page of the web edition.)Trasel (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: All your comments are original research. You fail to provide some reliable sources with significant coverage of this term. WP:N and WP:RS is the main issue here. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:51, 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. Actually, it could be merged with Peak oil. However nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Can you explain your rationale for the keep vote? The issue is with notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think it should be merged with another article, unless expanded and better sourced. But you could simply label this article for merging and discuss. Nominating an article for deletion is not the way.Biophys (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it a repository of neologisms both the Peaknik and Doomer articles should be transwikied to Wikitionary and the pages redirected to the Peak Oil page, where if necessary a brief explanation of the term should be included there. this site offers a definition similar to whats in the peaknik article but it also says the term has been used to refer to people who were fans of Twin Peaks. disclosure I came to this discussion after been asked as to whether I thought this site was a reliable source, my conclusion is that it more like a Self published source Anyone can create a website ..., then claim to be an expert in a certain field. it then says caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. The discussion at User_talk:Gnangarra/Archive21#RS didnt ask for me to make any comment in this discussion. Gnangarra 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is just the definition of a word, along with a bunch of duplication of Peak oil content that we already have in the Peak oil article. We don't have reliable source material to write an actual article on people who believe in the peak oil theory. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete per Gnangarra and Xyzzyplugh. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete Fails WP:WINAD. Razorflame 15:19, 22 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.