Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cubic mile of 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 was Keep and move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cubic mile of oil

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any evidence of notability. Only one of the cited sources I checked (IEEE Spectrum) wasn't either primary self-published. A search turned up references to the book by the same name, but nothing on the subject itself. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * delete. An impressive piece of original research, though. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * delete or rework move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. The article is a curious mix, part is about the unit but it then goes on to a comparison of energy usage. I think these consumptions are found elsewhere on Wikipedia. If we look at the first source its a book "A Cubic Mile of Oil: Realities and Options for Averting the Looming Global Energy Crisis" and the rest of the article follows the theme of the book. So this article works better if we think of it as an article about the book and not the unit. Thought of as about the book the problem does not seem to be one of OR as these are the topics discussed, but instead becomes one of notability. Is this a notable book, are their enough citations to this book? There are some substantial reviews like this one from The Globe and Mail. Potentially some of the material could be incorporated into Hewitt Crane page.--Salix alba (talk): 07:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * One more source --Salix alba (talk): 14:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just note that if we do move it, someone needs to do the work of modifying the article. Maybe that's just re-writing the first sentence, I don't know. But I'm not volunteering. GA-RT-22 (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * move to A Cubic Mile of Oil, the book is notable while the unit of measurement currently is not. The book has "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself".(See WP:NBOOK) Here are two non-trivial reviews by two different people independent of the book. This would require a lot of trimming of the current content, but plenty of it could stay, as it is a big part of the book. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to A Cubic Mile of Oil. The book meets the relevant standard, while the unit does not. I have stubbified the page accordingly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I have referenced this article dozens of times and was about to use it again when I found it was up for deletion.  I presume the article will be deleted because deleting useful articles is the mode Wikipedia is in. I guess if I want to use it again, I will have to save a copy since the history goes away with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs)
 * Keep and move. The book has enough published reviews to be notable. I think that makes a better primary concept than the wacky measurement unit. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2020 (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.