Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic heat


 * 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   speedy redirect to Waste heat. Nominator no longer calls for deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropogenic heat

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I proposed, but I don't think this article should be deleted, but constant redirects to waste heat have been inserted, so I think this is the best way to resolve matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs) 22:19, April 12, 2009


 * Strong keep as above. The article is different from waste heat in that WH includes biological heat (such as from a sprinting lion) and AH includes useful heat which is lost (e.g. from poor insulation). The terms are technically separate and both need an article.  Any other grounds for deletion can be addressed with love later, but here I think it's appropriate to debate the core argument.  Those inserting a redirect have not given a WP:RS to justify. Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to waste heat using one of those neato redirects that targets a section within an article. The term "anthropogenic heat" is used in climate research (and perhaps elsewhere), though it is not as common as other terms and has only recently been gaining attention. It is subtly different from the engineering concept of waste heat and is best discussed there so the distinction can be placed in context.  If the material on anthropogenic heat per se grows too large for waste heat it can be split out later. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Not an issue for AfD. The articles were already merged . Talk page consensus supports the merge. Nominator is forum shopping. Suggest speedy close. -Atmoz (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Merge and redirect as it already was. If and when there is sufficient material, and a good usable distinction between the HW and AH it can be split off again (or change name). Per Atmoz & Boris --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

N.B. I have built an appropriate re-direct landing section at Waste_heat  I still think the two topics should be separate articles, but I note the emerging consensus above and am satisfied that the current version of waste heat will not result in major confusion among readers or a factually inaccurate coverage of the topic. Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (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.