Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate emergency declarations in the United Kingdom


 * 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. Consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Climate emergency declarations in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm proposing deletion of this article because: I don't think this topic is notable enough for its own article, and for WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTEVERYTHING reasons. It's focussed on declarations at the subnational/regional level, which - based on the sourcing in the article (mostly primary sources/local news reports about local councils) - doesn't appear to be notable. Also, I don't think a long list of local councils which have declared climate emergency declarations is encyclopaedic - [t]o provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Although the following concerns aren't reasons for deletion by themselves, I think they're important to note: there seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the article, it's incomplete and is unlikely to be completed anytime soon - and even if it were complete, it would likely be overly detailed and long. I appreciate a lot of work has gone into this, so would like to hear what other editors who have contributed to this page think.  Seagull123  Φ  22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article clearly fails INDISCRIMINATE and SYNTH. I've proposed some changes to the article to bring it more in line with these policies, but beyond that I don't believe the article is significant enough for its own article to be justified per WP:NOTESAL and WP:SLC; there is little to no sources discussing the specifics of each region's declaration and the importance of it, and as stated above almost an entirety of the article's sources are primary sources. The article is overly long and the inclusion of every single city council regardless of relevance definitely falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I personally believe it as well as its sister article Climate emergency declarations in Australia should be merged into Climate emergency declaration: Recent development: list of countries and dependencies as notes beside each country's entry, perhaps along the line of "Several sub-national divisions have made declarations" for the United Kingdom, as a phrase along this line is already added to Australia's and the United States' entries. Builder018 (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I challenge the notion that this is not a topic of significance. The bulk of the climate emergency declaration movement has been targeted at local governments. The geographic spread of this in particular countries is of particular interest to people interested in the geographic influence of the movement. Just like the same sex marriage page tracks legislative change by jurisdiction so should the climate page. I have seen Wikipedia approve pages for minor character lists in anime movies, I am quite sure that tracking a legislative change/political movement is in the worlds interest. It has taken some time for me to complete the UK page as I work fulltime I have been adding to it when I have time. The Australia page is very thoroughly researched and complete and should not be scheduled for deletion. I will note here that Australia was infact the first country where a declaration was made and this declaration was at local government level, this is where the movement has had the most impact and concentration. This has been the case thoroughout the world. I urge admins to hesitate to delete these pages given the global significance of the emergency declaration movement. Greenie2020 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Greenie2020, notability on Wikipedia requires that an subject is covered by independent, reliable sources, per WP:NRV and WP:V; "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Whether or not you believe a subject is notable or "of particular interest" does not make it a topic that is verifiable and notable. The two articles are almost exclusively dependent on Primary Sources, which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia and may be grounds for deletion of an article if not fixed. In addition, articles which are not finished should be drafted in the sandbox and published at once, instead of gradually updated; Wikipedia generally tries to avoid leaving half-completed articles published, even if there is a clear plan to finish them. To avoid deletion, at the very least the article needs to be completed, needs reliable citations to show notability and support any analysis, needs to be trimmed to be more readable and not fall in conflict with the INDISCRIMINATE policy linked above, and needs to be trimmed of original research and primary sources. I'd be willing to help with any of these, but the article in its current state is easily within reason to be removed. Builder018 (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Builder018 The sheer amount of articles surely means that the subject is notable. Some of the articles referenced are national newspapers. The climate emergency in Darebin was reported globally. I agree with the sandbox comment. But it is a notable topic, I have not heard a justification as to why climate emergency declarations at a local level are not notable. I need assistance with both of them as I simply do not have enough free time to complete the UK article. The Australia one has all its sources it just needs more body text. Greenie2020 (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123  Φ  22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 22:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Builder018, User talk:Javiermes. Reason: Participated in earlier discussion on article talk page about the state of the article. <b style="background:#304747;color:#BED6D6"> Seagull123 </b><b style="color:#304747"> Φ </b> 22:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The current checklist format seems to violate WP:SOAP. The issues seems similar to the fashion for declaring nuclear-free zones.  The coverage for that at Nuclear-free_zone seems adequate for an encyclopedia and something similar is what's wanted, not this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Andrew. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly widely covered as a subject in the local press -- I don't see a criteria or policy for deletion being argued for here, Sadads (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reasons are: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:SYNTH. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Notability is not based on the current state of the article (and the delete rationales are based on this), but whether or not the topic is notable. This list obviously needs work, but the topic itself is notable and sources do exist about this subject. Further, when the article is developed properly it will meet WP:CLN for many of the decrees which may either have articles or sections in articles. There is an notable article here, and AfD is not for cleanup.  // Timothy :: talk  08:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per TimothyBlue. Also, if Climate emergency declarations in Australia is good enough for Wikipedia, then so is this (UK) sister article. The important matter of Climate change has in the last two years (mainly due to the megafires in Brazil, Australia, California, etc.) evolved into an even more urgent discussion about a "climate crisis" or "climate emergency". The UK is a major player in the fight against climate change, and many countries follow its lead. I think this article, the Aussie one, and future ones like it, can be of use to the WP:READER in better understanding the international response to the current and more pressing state of our global climate. Cordially, <b style="font-family:Georgia"><em style="color:Purple">History DMZ (<em style="color:Red">HQ ) † (<em style="color:Green">wire )</b> 09:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep although pedantically I think the word "emergency" should not be used for a timescale of years, and I agree with the comment above that more context should be added, the subject is notable because it will remain in the news with climate activists contrasting these declarations with council pension fund investments, purchase of fossil fuel vehicles etc. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.