Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petrodollar warfare (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Though personally I would recommend considering a merge with Dollar hegemony and Dollar diplomacy into an umbrella article on such topics.  Sandstein  07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Petrodollar warfare
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable term taken from one book. No sources that don't specifically reference the book. Fails WP:FRINGE.  Swarm  Talk 10:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia articles are not essays and does not contain original research. The hypothesis is definitely these two things, it goes into great lengths to prove that the hypothesis is feasible which Wikipedia should not be doing. Taking that into consideration there isn't any verifiable sources. --Sin Harvest (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * question - If a book has been written on the topic in 2005, how is WP creating Original Research by explaining the hypotheses? It cannot even be considered a 'Synthesis of published material that advances a position' as it does note both viewpoints from its list of Pro and Con section. Admittedly, the Prose of the Article could reflect this better, but we have no deadline, and an Expert should be the one to properly balance the correct views. AFD is for Topic WP:Notability, not just current state. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - But should Wikipedia have sources that backup the hypothesis or even rebut it? Shouldn't it have sources that show that the Petrodollar warfare hypothesis is what it says it is in the article?
 * For example Most oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD) is backed up with a source in the article but that source (broken by the way) verifies what the hypothesis says is actually occurring, not what the hypothesis is. I would have thought that Wikipedia isn't concerned if the theory is correct and actually occurring but is concerned that the theory/term/hypothesis is stated correctly and verified as such with sources. --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should have a balanced viewpoint, with as many cites as both views can find. As well, if possible, it should mention opposing theories and any major differences to them. To state & cite only 1 viewpoint would give the entire hypothesis undue weight. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But more importantly there should be verifiable sources of the hypothesis existing which this article is missing, because without these verifiable sources an article is really really close to synthesis piece. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm isn't the book the source of the hypothesis ? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are abundant sources testifying to the notability of this well-known concept. See this book for example.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The term never appears in the reference you just posted except when referencing the book.  Swarm  Talk 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So - what of it? The book seems to have a substantial reputation and so is naturally cited as a reference in further discussion of the topic.  This is to be expected.  The essential point here is that the topic is discussed by multiple substantial and independent sources and so it is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Full-text searches in Ebsco, Gale, and Proquest yielded seven unique results, all related to the Clark book. Three are mentions; four are references.  I only had time to look quickly at google books results, but what I saw appeared to be the same.  Clark's hyposthesis gets discussed, yes, but apparently only in larger contexts, and the phrase "petrodollar warfare" seems to be his alone.  It doesn't appear to have gained currency elsewhere.  It would therefore seem to me that the only valid way to construct a WP article on "Petrodollar Warfare" would be to make it about the book, but I don't personally feel like it's really cited often enough, or mentions of it are in-depth enough to satisfy notability under WP:BK.  Others may disagree. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so our topic is not the phrase "petrodollar warfare" but the general concept which it represents. This concept - that force is being used to prop up the oil/dollar system - may be discussed using many forms of words.  Here, for example, Ron Paul discusses it in the House.  He doesn't use the exact phrase but the same concept appears in other words.  So, when searching for sources, we should cast our net wide to include sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I get the point about concept vs. term, and which this article really is, but it strikes me as flirting with danger as far as coatracking is concerned that the title of the article is a term that is so specific to a single person that it is virtually never used unless in reference to him, yet the article is not similarly specific. I don't know what the answer is.  Renaming the article The Hypothesis That Force Is Used to Prop Up the Oil/Dollar System probably isn't the way to go. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - enough Cites to prove the term exists. Needs a cleanup by an Expert. I have requested User talk:Unclebob take a look at it as he mentioned He may during the last AFD, but which does not seem to have happened (after browsing the History). I think the arguments put forth for deletion have more to do with the specific name of this article (whis is the same as a book) than with the actual hypothesis. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Unreferenced, original research on a neologistic term with no 3rd party coverage separate from the book. EeepEeep (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has references and so it is not unreferenced. The references support the article's content and so it is not OR. The words of the title appear in the OED so it is not a neologism.  There is reliable 3rd party coverage separate from the book and so not one of your reasons to speedy delete is true. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cite for this being in the OED? EeepEeep (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2010 (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.