Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Sweden


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change in Sweden

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No need for this as a separate article. Virtually no content. Brilliantine (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Looks like I forgot about this poor wee stub. The article is a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the potential for any content here that can't be covered in Regional effects of global warming and the various articles dealing with environmentalism in Sweden. Having thousands of sub-articles for instances such as this damages the readability and usefulness of Wikipedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Size of English Wikipedia broken down.png While we are at is shall we get rid of the Pokémon characters and merge them into the main article? It we merge Climate change in the United States, Climate change in Tuvalu, Climate change in Alberta, Climate change in California, Climate change in Australia, Climate change in New Zealand, Climate change in Japan, Climate change in China etc into the same article it will be an unweildly mess. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. Surely no-one's played the 'Pokemon Test' card since 2006 at least. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a sensible keep rationale. If such merging would make the article/s an unwieldy mess (doubtful for this article given the lack of content to merge), it might be appropriate to consider whether the information - not that there is really any at present in this case - would be appropriate for a wikipedia article at all. Remember, there is plenty of space for a good general article on environmentalism on each of the mentioned countries, if one doesn't exist already.
 * Yes, I know the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is not valid in an Afd but I just liked the picture!! Face-grin.svg Yes, there is "space" and definitely a need for a general article on the environment and environmentalism. Some do exist. See Category:Environment by country. However, those articles should exist as well as this article. It is notable and there is more than enough verifiable info on the topic. We need to keep in mind the hierarchy and notability of topics before throwing them up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, notable topic, but insufficient data.--Tingo Chu (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep even though the effects on the environment may be covered better in regional pages, there are also political and economic considerations that can only really be addressed in these sort of country specific articles. Even if the article in its current form doesn't do what it ought to optimally, it shouldn't be deleted, it should be improved. Handschuh-talk to me 06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A3 "virtually" no content?  Stinging Swarm  talk 07:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic should be expanded, not deleted. By the way, how many Climate change in... articles have been nominated for deletion in the last 24 hours? I stumbled upon Climate change in Canada an hour ago, and now Sweden... Bouchecl (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete per Articles for deletion/Climate change in Canada and many more William M. Connolley (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument for deletion. Your entry at Articles for deletion/Climate change in Canada is a confusing statement and "many more" goes unexplained. Please discuss coherently. Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The current version of the article is not in the very best shape, but the amount of Swedish media coverage and political attention of the subject means that there is definitely sufficient material to have an article on the subject. Tomas e (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is evidently notable. For example, see Sweden, climate change and the EU context. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep important article, there are good secondary sources looking at Climate change in the context of Sweden. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Separate articles for each country, showing their policies and whatnot, is perfectly reasonable. Quite encyclopedic.  No reason to delete this.  And certainly if you found someone who could speak their language and search through the news sources, you'd have plenty of coverage this.   D r e a m Focus  12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Separate articles for each country also seems reasonable to me. Whether climate change is happening or not is a separate issue from having information about what actions are being taken in each country with climate change as the reason or with other motivating factors, such as substantially reduced dependence on oil from unreliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment At present this article is completely incorrectly named. It seems almost exclusively about emmission policy in Sweden and nothing whatsoever to to with climate change in Sweden. However, this sort of issue will never be sorted out by AfD where a load of people not involved in these articles will simply vote "keep it is notable" This is not a deletion issue and details can be sorted out on the article's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 7 January 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.