Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America


 * 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   redirect to Technical Alliance. Redirecting seems like the reasonable compromise here. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Energy Survey of North America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unfortunately this is non-notable redundant cruft. No reliable sources, and much of the content overlaps with Technical Alliance. Johnfos (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. An effort is being made to strip articles from Wikipedia connected to energy economics by mainstream editors and their cohorts. User:Johnfos, is part of that group that wants to delete anything related to that. See this as to Wikistalking people involved in these articles see this on that users behavior. This is malicious editing at its worse. People that have a pov against notable information and are systematically removing that notable information. This is happening also on multiple articles related. This article documents the origin of the study of biophysical economics in North America. It is very important. M. King Hubbert geo scientist was a member of this group along with Thorstein Veblen and many other notables. See this discussion for more details on a group of editors tandem editing articles for mainstream views here and here. skip sievert (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Skipeievert is a primary contributor to this article. Despite this, s/he has decided to not disclose this common courtesy which is asked of editors on the WP:AFD main policy page. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note. User:Skipsievert blocked indefinitely, by User:Moreschi, for "massive POV-pushing", see . -- Johnfos (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive575 -- Johnfos (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Technical Alliance Yet more multiply redundant trivia. There's nothing in the article to suggest that the survey was published or that it produced any results of interest. After the first sentence, the article is just the same old stuff, with no clear link to the survey it's supposed to be about.JQ (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong. It was published as the Technocracy Study Course. This formed the basis of the concept of energy accounting in biophysical economics. skip sievert (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Technical Alliance or maybe Technocracy Incorporated. Only first three sentences are about the energy survey as such, which is not enough to keep a separate article. Beagel (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Beagel you tandem edit with Johnphos and L.K, and J.Q. those editors are systematically removing references to this notable material for unknown reasons, (pov?), but see the note here on that subject from Economics project page. Accordingly you are a canvassed voice here. See this thread about a possible topic ban for that groups leader.
 * Skip, I would have to repeat my similar request to remove your personal attack and baseless accusations. I never had have any contact with L.K. or J.Q., and never discussed with Johnfos you or your edits. This is irrelevant, but my last contact with Johnfos was several months ago about creation of the article about the Gujarat solar park. Your accusation about tandem edit is a nonsense and your disruptive editorial behavior does not help to achieve the aim of Wikipedia. As of canvassing, I think that as of a member of the WP:Energy, you should knews that there is an automatic notice on the project website about proposed deletions of articles tagged with the project banner. So, once again, please remove your baseless accusations and personal attack. Beagel (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm that I have never encountered Beagel before this, and had never encountered User:Johnfos until about a week ago. The fact is, Skip, that you are causing trouble to so many different people on so many different topics that you can't keep track. JQ (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Topic is a keeper - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. Merge photo. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If the item has historical significance, there will be (probably paper) secondary sources verifying that significance. However, the only refs are to a very small group with no known reliability. If warranted, merge one or two sentences to Technical Alliance. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why we have separate articles at this title and at Technical Alliance. Surely one should be a redirect to the other.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Technical Alliance - There might be something in this article that's worth merging but there's certainly nothing to assert that the subject is notable on its own. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The energy survey is real and I have held it in my hands. If consensus must state this article to be 'non-notable' I support a redirect to another Technocracy article. Trfs (talk) 19:41, 8 November 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.