Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme energy (term)


 * 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   transwiki to Wiktionary. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Extreme energy (term)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With some doubts, after looking the history of this article and doing web searches, I think that this article fails WP:GNG and probably should be transferred to Wiktionary. It was originally created as extreme energy and after discussion at the talk page it was merged into the Michael Klare article. Three month later it was re-created using different capitalization (Extreme Energy) and was then moved to its current title. The term has some mentioning in mainstream media but almost always the term is associated with its inventor Michael Klare. It has little bit more usage by non-mainstream sources usually use in the context like "Extreme Energy Summit" of "Extreme Energy Initiative". However, these events/forums seems also fail WP:GNG. No search hits by Google Scholar. As the term is in general a synonym for unconventional resources/unconventional oil (as described by the original author) and is related to the professor Klare, I think the term should be mentioned in these articles and also it should be included in Wiktionary, but it does not deserve a separate article. Beagel (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The term is a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. A Wiktionary entry may be useful, but It does not merit an encyclopedia article. - MrX 17:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 03:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The topics mentioned in the article are certainly important, but the expression itself belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or rework this page is providing a useful function - explaining a term. Perhaps there is a better way to explain what this term means, but until there is something better (ie a better explanation arising from, say, a google search), I say keep.Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2013 (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.