Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy policy of Turkey


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Energy policy of Turkey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page does not appear to cover something that needs its own page, nor does it provide good enough content to justify its notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your second point that it does not have enough content therefore I am adding a "stub" tag to encourage others to add to it. However I disagree with your first point: it is certainly more important than the energy policies of Belgium, Scotland, Finland or Romania which are all listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Energy_policy_by_country Jzlcdh (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Such a page could be valuable, but right now it doesn't string together or make much sense. Can you address that point to improve the page? Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and stubbify (even further). This looks like a WP:COATRACK creation to hang the Greenpeace "controversy". Not to say it was done in bad faith, but it reads very POV due to balance problems. In fact I'm not even sure the controversy section is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, or that it is even a controversy. I would support a 1-sentence stub to get the topic started, and move the "controversy" to the talk page until later authors can balance the article, per WP:NPOV. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - See as an example of the coverage of Turkish energy policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy makes a good point that it did not string together, so I have expanded it slightly and added a Min. of Energy reference. Thanks Whpq - I have now added a similar book but more recent. Obviously whoever made the redlink which prompted me to create it thought an article was needed. It was only started a few days ago so give it a chance. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The new sources give it a much better start, so I'm changing my vote to Keep. I've also fixed up the structure a bit in order to have it comply better with the style guide. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (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.