Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Change in New York


 * 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. However, there is a rough consensus to stubify, which I strongly recommend someone do ASAP. MuZemike 19:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change in New York

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant non-neutral POV. Many parts are very unencyclopedic in tone. Because of the divisive nature of the subject, it is highly likely that a neutral POV cannot be reached. Moreover, "climate change" regarding specific U.S. states would seem to be something that is a bit too specific in nature. (no pun intended). I wonder if this is a sort of coatrack for hanging these type of articles about every state in the Union. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I see there is also an article titled Climate change in Washington. That article, however, is exhaustively referenced and cited, especially compared to this article, which seems to interpolate national or global data to the state level. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Stubify: The article reads like a middle-school essay and while I applaud the willingness of someone to research a "science/society" related topic and write about it, I don't think that the tone is appropriate for Wikipedia. Awickert (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Blatantly POV, school-age essayish, bordering on propaganda based on that statement in the first paragraph that all this is "due to global warming."  No, thanks.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubify, Category:Climate change in the United States by state has a few states in it already, the problem with this article in relation to them is that it's badly written; the existing references would make a good starting point for a subsequent re-writing. Josh Parris 05:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubify Certainly the effects of climate change in a particular region are a worthy topic, in principle, and the refs are decent. Also, in phrasing your comments, note that the article creator is extremely new. Gruntler (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubify It's certainly notable enough... however the writing is quite childish. Needs a whole lot of work, but as stated above, the references are an okay start to an article that meets standards. Š¡nglî§h §Þëªk£r ♫ (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The language clearly needs some improvement, however there are legitimate sources cited here and it does seem to meet notability--Fredwerner (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "MOre improvment is neccesary, but hopefully I helped, I tried to do as much as posslibe. Keep it up;-)"--Winston betts (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you sure did help. Changing vote to keep.  I'm rather embarassed to admit that I didn't read far enough down the page in the first place to see the references the original author used.  PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Models are hot. Delete: global circulation models have much too coarse of resolution to resolve anything on a city level (the current article does not specify, but the content reads like the author meant NYC not NYS). Downscaling is an area of active research where the biases and errors are large. They do pretty bad at pretty much everything. Prognosing societal impacts from climate change at a city or US state resolution beyond "global temperature does this, therefore..." is downright dangerous unless specific sources can be found that deal with specific aspects of climate change for that region. It would be preferable if these were literature review type sources (secondary), but something written by an expert from primary sources would be okay (although probably not by WP standards). Glancing through the references of the aforementioned Climate change in Washington article, I see no references cited that deal specifically with climate change in WA. I do however see a very good synthesis of sources. The same goes for other articles similar to this one. The effects of global warming on New York will be the same as any other major coastal city. There is no need for a bazillion articles called "Climate change in ". There are too many CC in ___ articles as it is now. Leaving aside the fact that they really should be GW in ___ as they only discuss present CC aka GW, there is simply no need for them. There will be regional variation in GW, but not defined by arbitrary political boundaries. All these articles need to be merged into a few well thought out articles. However, this article contains no information that is not already elsewhere, therefore it can safely be deleted. (Apply liberally to related articles.) -Atmoz (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The reasons mentioned above are compelling, but it's simply too specific of a region to be covered by a sub-article. "Climate change in New York is accelerating due to New York's growing population" – what's significant about this? The fact that this likely only applies to the city and not the rest of the area aside, doesn't this apply to everywhere...? This is simply non-notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:50, 27 October 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.