Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy security


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Energy security

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has had a tag on since 2010 as it reads like an essay with personal opinions. Having looked at the refs (very few which actually work) - they all come from a particular view point and I couldn't find any that provide information about 'Energy Security' as the focus. There is a lot of information that lacks citations too. Wikipedia already has quite a few articles which describe individual countries policies on Energy Security - Energy security and renewable technology also covers this topic. ツStacey (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The page needs additional references for verification but the subject seems notable. Meatsgains (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing any discernable personal opinions and so am removing that tag as it seems to be unhelpful. If the current sources are inadequate then it seems easy to find plenty more books about the topic including International Handbook of Energy Security; Energy Security: Economics, Politics, Strategies, and Implications; Energy Security Challenges for the 21st Century. Andrew D. (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable topic that has received widespread coverage in legal and political scholarship. See, for example, this article in the Yale Human Rights and Development Journal and this article from the Fordham International Law Journal. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; see WP:TNT. Notability notwithstanding, the current content is rather junky, and we might be better off without this article so that we can start again from the beginning.  Nyttend (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep with a purge it sounds like there is need for a purge of material that doesn't support the consensus scholarly positions, and is based on synthesis. Its clearly notable, Sadads (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. A quick search shows it is something the EU is seriously considering as well as being written about in various other places. Certainly a fairly mainstream concept in Canada (was part of the curriculum when I went through High School, if I recall). Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2015 (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.