Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base load theory


 * 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   delete. No additional sources/references/coverage was added to the article or brought up here. Ultimately, the arguments to consider concern whether this topic is of sufficent note and whether the current content fails WP:SYNTH. Given that the article creator readily acknowledges the original research problem(s), and there lacks substantial evidence of noteworthy coverage, this article will be deleted. However, xoddam or any other editor is welcome to contact me to restore the article in userspace in order to salvage the sources or content for future work. &mdash; Scientizzle 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Base load theory

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is still a POV essay, despite efforts to fix it. Nothing appears worth salvaging to me. Allen (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, this article's purpose is to counter claims apparently made by the coal industry regarding renewable energy. The principal paper cited in this article does not seem to be peer-reviewed. --Allen (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very notable subject that is widely discussed. The nominator only gives reasons for editing, not deletion. How can you say "nothing appears worth salvaging" when the article contains loads of well sourced factual information about the subject. The only problem is with the way some of it is presented. And the article's purpose is not to counter any claims. That may have been the purpose of the original creator, but that editor does not own the article so does not have the right to define its purpose. As with any Wikipedia article this one's purpose is to present neutral, verifiable information on a notable subject. That purpose can't be fulfilled by deleting the article, only by editing it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find no evidence to substantiate this article's notability. The reference list, while on the surface credible, doesn't really address the topic. (The vast majority don't even mention Base Load Theory.) At best it's OR and a synthesis. Base Load Theory fails the Google Test with only 9 hits. Although the Google test isn't perfect, it does suggest a prima facie case against notability unless an alternative explanation can be provided such as inherent notability, predates the internet, specialised topic, etc. none of which apply in this case as far as I can see. Debate (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The references in the article are very much about this subject. Just because they don't use the exact phrase "base load theory" doesn't matter. Per WP:DICDEF Wikipedia articles are about subjects, not words or phrases. The subject has been shown to be notable - if a different title would be better then the change can be made by bold editing or talk page discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, where has the subject has been shown to be notable? All I can see is an OR essay consisting almost entirely of primary source references. WP:DICDEF is not a license to authorise the creation of material from scratch. Any coverage from a reliable secondary or tertiary source indicating that topic has a clear and consistent definition, whether under this title or any other, would be more than we have now. Debate (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "google test" would be best applied to the article's original title, "base load fallacy", since the rename appears to have been a clumsy if WP:BOLD attempt to address POV (turning the article from my original WP:POV essay into WP:SYN). A clear and consistent definition is lacking, though I didn't fully realise this when I created the article, since "base load" as a term of art apparently differs somewhat (in some documents) from the layman's definition (as presented here) and from the progressive (re-)definitions attempted by Walt Patterson and RMI. --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, if only so the references are readily accessible. I readily acknowledge it was originally POV and now it's mostly awful.  I simply haven't had time to do the sane rewrite the topic deserves (haven't logged in for months).  A full treatment in this article would necessarily be WP:SYN so approaching this in an appropriately encyclopaedic fashion entails a discussion from first principles under the title base load (which is currently a redirect to base load power plant). --xoddam (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep - if reliable references can be found. If not, Delete as an unsubstantiated essay. J.d ela noy gabs analyze  14:25, 4 June 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.