Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olduvai 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. ✗plicit 01:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olduvai theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly a fringe theory. The sources shake out as so: 1) things Duncan published himself, 2) unreliable blogs and websites, 3) passing citations of energy consumption in certain countries and unit conversions (which raises WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS questions), 4) the fairly nice IEEE Spectrum article, which mentions Duncan and the Olduvai theory only in passing. Additional links in "Further Reading" are either passing or mention the theory only in combination with the rest of peak oil. I suppose a merge to peak oil might be an option, but this has so many bad smells that I'd rather just delete it. Apocheir (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — all of those factors definitely put it in the crank zone. Krinn DNZ (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so much of the sources reference back to Duncan himself that what is left is wholly inadequate to support notability. A redirect would suffice. As it stands it fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:15, 12 February 2022 (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.