Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020s in climate history


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

2020s in climate history

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Per WP:OR, the author had to do OR or WP:SYNTH to create it Bruxton (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. the article in its current form is simply excerpts from existing relevant articles. so clearly, it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From my reading of WP:SYNTH - "...material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I will see what others have to say, and will withdraw if I am alone in my reading of the guidelines.
 * Examples of articles that have to do with weather not climate - and many are just about fires
 * BBC reference says nothing about climate history, it is about weather not climate.
 * Local fire article - not about climate
 * Another weather article
 * This is some kind of fire blog
 * There are many fire articles like this involving weather Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * let me clarify, all of that material was generated because I literally used  , to pull an excerpt from the article 2022 United Kingdom heat wave. for some reason, template:excerpt pulled a section from the middle of the article, rather than the opening section, as I intended. since you are raising that as an issue, I will retain only the opening excerpt for that article. Sm8900 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting discussion, there are strong opinions for "Keep" and "Delete". Please do not move article while it is being discussed at AFD, it complicates closing the discussion as well as relisting. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I think this subject is important enough for its own article. It could do with expanding. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on the first part? As in, what make it notable rather than saying you think it should be an article? SWinxy (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The current article largely consists of excerpts from other articles, and as such it's invalid to blame any internal synthesis on this one or its author. Even if this article were to consist of pure OR, the sheer notability and importance of this topic would still make deletion unjustifiable. Glades12 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept, as seems likely, it needs to be referenced correctly. As it stands all of the cites for the short form references are missing (e.g. IPCC AR6 WG1 2021 is not a reference, it is a broken link), and there is a completely missing reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually make that delete. The article is missing nearly all of its sourcing due to the use of excerpt and it's incompatibility with short form refs and even named refs. To fix this the excerpt would need to be replaced with written text, and main used instead. By that point though it would be a completely different article, so WP:TNT applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it would not be different at all. all we need to do is to copy and paste the text that is already part of that article. the content would not change in any way, Sm8900 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. The referencing is shot, and the scope is far too broad. Normally, summary articles like this cover a decade at most. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * originally it was meant to cover the 2020s, but someone renamed it. Can we please change it back?--Sm8900 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the referencing has been fully updated. Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look into turning on no target errors, all of the cites used by short form refs (e.g. sfn or harvnb) are still missing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per WP:TNT. This article, which currently consists of disjointed excerpts from related articles, would need to be completely written to be a coherent article. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * that would be very easy to do. the point is to create a solid foundation now, to do so. this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. the point is to provide the foundational article to enable them to have a place to do so. Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering that this is all excerpts from other articles, there's nothing distinguishing about it. It's not coverage of this decade's climate as an overview, perhaps because it is WP:TOOSOON. Either delete or transform into a list pointing to the individual articles. SWinxy (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: a manifestly notable topic. Summary style and timeline articles, an established practice, are not synthesis violations. The content of the article can be improved (I'd cut most of the contextual detail about climate change), but fundamentally there is plenty to talk about in terms of the extreme weather events that climate change has caused, the pledges and (in)action of governments and corporations to mitigate climate change, and improved scientific understanding of the mechanism and effect of climate change. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:38, 12 August 2022 (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.