Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy illiteracy

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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Energy illiteracy

Appears to be entirely original research; a search indicates that this is a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author's only other contrib, Burnivore, is also up for deletion for the same reasons. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no question that this article is pure OR. I'm not sure about the neologism however, since energy literacy appears to be an issue. I don't know how notable, as I only heard about it when I found Energy_Literacy_Advocates in the backlog. I have no idea if energy illiteracy may have any context related to ELA's work, just wanted to throw it out there. Travellingcari (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to energy literacy and remove all unreferenced content. Oh, wait, I guess that would effectively delete it. "Energy literacy" has 11.700 hits in Google vs. 969 for "energy illiteracy". It seems like a useful concept if someone were to write a referenced article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR that doesn't seem like it could possibly be notable. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 05:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't doubt for a moment that energy illiteracy exists and is very widespread, but this article is very far from meeting Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view and reliable sources. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to cover the same ground as Joule Standard which is also in AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be covered by energy. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reads like a bad pamphlet. JuJube (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. All of this user's contribs to date are OR essays, unverifiable, neologistic, on AfD or all of the above. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This article is obviously pushing a non-neutral point of view. vıd ıoman 12:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reference, WP:OR. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.