Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot stain (3rd nomination)

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot stain

Hot stain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little-used neologism only used in the works of Maude Barlow. No scholarly or reliable source hits outside of works that Barlow was involved in. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep - For the third time (this is getting annoying). Hot stain is not a neologism. I just can't find more referernces on line that meet the Wikipedia standards. Water stress is the internationally accepted term for areas where water has reached below 1,700 cubic meters per person per year. Water scarcity is the internationally accepted term when the water resource is below 1,000 cubic meters per person per year. In contrast, a Hot stain is where water has been *completely* depleted.  kgrr talk 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Offline sources would be fine too. If you recall, I have even used EBSCOHost in the past to search scholarly works (even offline ones) and was unable to find any scholarly references to the term outside of Barlow's work. Gigs (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Based on the nomination statement: The term is used. The term is used by notable person Maude Barlow. Scholarly and reliable sources (involving Barlow) are available. I see no rationale that this article should be deleted due to some Barlow COI issue. Whether this article should be merged to Maude Barlow is an editorial decision, and it is not one that I would agree with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
probably a neologism, but it's being use worldwide. For example here it's being used by an Australian web site un-related to Maude Barlow*"Fair water use". Fair Water Use. Retrieved 2010-03-19. Australia has been identified a "hot stain": a region of the Earth currently running out of potable water. I would be against a merge with the Maude Barlow article. 76.104.163.79 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Maude Barlow, this particular neologism use of hot stain by Barlow (and her few supporters) is dwarfed by the weight of usage previously extant, wood stain applied hot & Ziehl-Neelsen stain. L0b0t (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I did find references to the Ziehl-Neelsen stain as being a "hot stain" in quite a few scholarly papers. (This is why I had added the disambiguation link to Ziehl-Neelsen stain in the first place. I also did find a few references to "hot stain" as a wood stain that has been heated prior to use. And, there are about as many "hot stain" references involving peak water/water shortage, etc as there are references to "hot stain" in furniture making. Perhaps what is needed is a disambiguation page for "hot stain" that points to three articles. 1) Hot stain (biology) should point to Ziehl-Neelsen stain since I could not find any other hot stains in that context. 2) Hot stain (wood) should point to Wood stain, which can incorporate a few sentences to indicate that hotstains absorb into the wood faster, etc. 3) Hot stain (water) should point to this article, which can stand on its own. I don't think a disambiguation page should point to the Maude Barlow article because 'hot stain' is not only associated with her.  kgrr talk 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, the word is thought to have been coined by the world renown hydrologist Dr. Michal Kravik. There is no reason a disambiguation page should point to the Maude Barlow article.  kgrr talk 19:06, 21 March 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.