Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot stain

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. MBisanz ^talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot stain

Apparently a neologism. Claimed to be a term used by scientists, but a wide ranging academic paper search (EBSCOHost) only brought up one pop-science opinion article by Maude Barlow in "The Nation". A few hits on the web, but everything seems to lead back to articles authored by Barlow. Gigs (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional infomation Double tongued dictionary references this apparent letter to the editor. This article by Kirk James Murphy, M.D. references the double tongued dictionary. Wisegeek also has an article on the word, but they don't cite sources. There's a very incestuous circle of references here, and as I said before, no hits on EBSCOHost outside of Barlow. Gigs (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neologism: 1 : a new word, usage, or expression 2 : a meaningless word coined by a psychotic. Neither. Hot stain is used in many articles to describe areas where safe drinking water has been depleted. Yes, Maude Barlow has written three books about water depletion. All of which use the term. Quite a few articles give reference to Maude Barlow's books or articles. What do you expect? She's a notable activist and author in the field of water depletion. I gave three references in the small stub article describing the depleted area. I can give more references such as the article by Kirk James Murphy, M.D. The End of Drinking Water? July 12, 2008 that you refer to. He also does talk about Maude Barlow, But you have already labeled her and anyone or anything referring to her with the epithet "incestous". Double tongued dictionary refers to Marylou Healy's article as their source Protecting water vital to America June 16, 2008. She does *not* bring up Maude Marlow. According to Wise Geek, it's a term coined in the late 1990's. It's hardly a neologism if the word was coined 10-12 years ago. Give me a break. Why do you continually hang around the articles I have written and launch your attacks? Does something bother you about water shortages? or the prospect that water can run out? I feel like you and Grundle2600 have nothing better to do than to play tag team. What's the deal? kgrr ^talk 06:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kgrr. This nomination is nothing personal. I just took an interest in improving the Peak Water article and noticed that this term has very little usage when I went to research it in greater depth. The Wikipedia definition of neologism is "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities". "Hot stain" is apparently primarily only used in Barlow's work, and has very little wider acceptance in the scientific community. The incestuous comment was not meant as an epithet, it was to illustrate that "all roads lead to Rome" when it comes to usage of this term. I look forward to working with you on various articles, but I don't think this one meets the criteria for inclusion. Gigs (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Maude Barlow in her book Blue Gold, the word appears to have been coined by Mihal Kravcik in Kravcik, M.,Water for the third Millenium, People and water, Kosice, 2000 to describe large areas of land consumed in a perma-drought. Think Sahara Desert. I will try to find a URL for that paper. Some background is in order. Maude Barlow is National Chair of the Council of Canadians and Tony Clarke is Executive Director of the Polaris Institute, another Canadian organization. Barlow was also recently appointed as UN Senior Water Adviser. kgrr ^talk 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is being used to describe a certain thing in a variety of places... that being an area where water resources may not be able to be used for humans. It may be a relatively new word, but seems to be in use with the same meaning by those using it. California is one ot the "hot stain' areas of the world where water is fast dissapearing. Yet while the water is disappearing, our per capita usage is doubling. It looks like this term will be used more as water resources dissapear. skip sievert (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an encyclopedia, we should not speculate on the future notability of a subject. The concern is that it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy, the existence of the WP article can lend credibility to a relatively obscure neologism. Gigs (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still undecided on this. Here's a newspaper reference to the term [1]. Although it might be used to some extent, this is probably a not-very-common neologism, and as such undeserving of an article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have expanded the article information a little. It seems like with just a bit more editing and information presentation the article can be made more notable or informative. skip sievert (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Gigs (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly a notable concept; I don't think anyone can deny that. The word may not be in common use, but I'm not aware of any more common terms for the concept. Powers ^T 17:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry to say it, but I think the article has gotten worse since this AfD started. Expanding the article with general water resources information that overlaps with (and probably belongs in) the Peak water article doesn't make me want to keep it any more than before. I also don't understand what wood stains have to do with this. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I do not share that opinion. The article is a stub. The article was not expanded with general water resources information. More directly related information as to human water resources was added to expand the article in content and creative presentation that relates to the article title and subject (my opinion). Working on articles during an A.f.d. is something that brings more interest to presentation and thought to the debate, and expanding info., can make an article less of a stub and more of an encyclopedia entry... also my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Yes, there are problems with the article. They should be fixed with good editing, not with deletion. This term does appear to be a neologism, but there is also evidence of some reliable source. Merge would be, preferably, to a section in an article covering the more general subject. At this point, it's not clear to me that the term is in sufficient use to justify its own article, but even minor neologisms, if there is any evidence of usage, as there is with this term, can deserve a redirect. We should remember that our purpose isn't just to create an encyclopedia in the abstract, but also to serve our readers. Merge is a matter of ordinary editing and consensus, it can be done at any time, and I dislike the blunt instrument of deletion when there is any reasonable basis for keeping some of an article's information in the project, because deletion inhibits the formation of broader consensus, and merge is easily undone with no fuss if more source appears that can't adequately be covered in the target article. Gigs' argument above is actually an argument for Merge, not Delete. "Hot stain" is also a kind of wood stain, so searches should include the term "potable water" or some other possible associated words. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heh, Abd, my point was, when the AfD started, the article was fine, it didn't have any issues other than being only one sentence long. All of the problems with the article have come since the AfD, with misguided attempts to bloat the article to "give it more notability". There wasn't much to merge when I nominated it. I definitely think the concept is notable enough to be mentioned in other articles, just not to warrant its own. Gigs (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think your comment user Gigs is demeaning and uncalled for. This may be your opinion though. If the article was fine then why did you A.f.d. it? You do not have to answer that, it is just a rhetorical question. The article was also not only one sentence long at least when I saw it. Also to imply that the added information was added to bloat in a misguided way is just a little like Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. skip sievert (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip, I think your edits are in good faith, and I do appreciate that. It is completely appropriate for you to attempt to improve an article in AfD as well. Adding more information to an article will not give the subject of the article more notability though. The added information does nothing to establish the notability either, and, in my personal opinion, has made the article somewhat worse off. Remember, we aren't debating about the notability of the article here, we are debating the notability of the subject. I hope you can see this is why I said I thought the edits were misguided. It was very much not a personal attack, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added per suggestion of Abd Potable water. That was done because there is a direct connection. But lets get on with other issues. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved much of that off-topic material to water stress, where it fits perfectly. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the scholarly sources I can find use this term to mean "a chemical staining solution used at high temperature" (see (link), so I doubt that this term is in common use. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (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.