Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumer energy conservation strategies


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consumer energy conservation strategies
Per What Wikipedia Is Not, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This article is almost entirely advice and suggestions. It belongs in Wikibooks, and surprise, it's already there! Nova SS 02:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 02:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. John254 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and make it not a how-to. Fg2 04:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If this were a different article, it would not deserve to be deleted isn't a compelling argument - do you plan to rewrite it? WilyD 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia should not give advice and is not Jimmy Carter :) Gazpacho 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Ben FrantzDale 12:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per not a how-to guide. WilyD 12:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as written, per nom. If someone wishes to rewrite this into an article and not a How-To Guide, I might change my position. I would not oppose the article being recreated later as something encyclopedic rather than an instruction guide. This topic is encyclopedic; this article is not. Scorpiondollprincess 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Isopropyl 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete/transwiki. I don't even think that changing the mood (from imperative to indicative), voice (active to passive), and from 2nd person to 3rd person could elevate this to the level of an encyclopedia entry. Even if this were done, the article would still basically be a guide on what consumers could do to save energy.  It belongs in Wikibooks and Wikihow.  Ufwuct 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant - it's in Wikibooks. If any content is NPOV-salvagable, it should be merged to energy conservation. Deco 21:47, 10 August 2006 (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.