Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental issues with energy


 * 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   No Consensus. I would welcome those who are interested in this article to please work on improving its contents. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Environmental issues with energy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This stub article has no justified notability and is more the topic of a discussion forum rather than an article. Such a list of issues can easily be factored into an existing article such as Sustainability. Teahot (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to want to be a dab page but searches should turn this material up when needed; or, the links may be placed at an energy-related page. JJL (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a dab page at present but the idea is to expand it. Very few articles emerge perfectly formed. There is sufficient info in the sibling articles to create a fully fledging article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is encyclopedic and notable, and it can be developed into a good article. RUL3R *flaming 18:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an encyclopedic article that must exist. It will not be a discussion forum - that does not happen in WP. There is plenty of info able to be sourced on the topic. Energy is a very important issue and is strongly linked with climate change and global warming which are in themselves very notable and at times contentious. I created the article to fill a gap and deliberately tagged it with expand and prose with the hope that another editor would run with it. There are many of these overview articles that are non-existent in WP. It seems articles on very specific topics are more likely to be written and there is no overview article to stitch all the related topics together. One instance I found by way of example was Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef existed but no Environmental issues in Australia article. The latter article has since been written. I firmly believe that any gaps that exist in WP should at the very least be filled with a stub page that can be expanded. Such a stub page is a prompt for an editor to expand it and gives a WP reader/user at least some info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably a better option would be to move at Environmental concerns with energy. Just suggesting. -- RUL3R *flaming 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "issues" has been raised elsewhere and I don't think there was a resolution. Can you elaborate on you choice of wording? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is just that weather something is an "issue" or not is subjective. In this case, it is an issue for Greenpeace, Al Gore and affiliated organizations. But it is not (or at least not a priority issue) for energy companies, since it is what they do, and profit from. It is rather a concern of certain groups, who push for stronger stronger mesures to be taken. -- RUL3R *flaming 05:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I see what you mean now. How about Energy and the environment? It is an NPOV title and is a more inclusive topic . -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Before moving the article in order to remove the word "issues", please consider potential unnecessary duplication with the established Sustainable energy article as the topic Energy and the environment looks like it should be a simple redirect.—Teahot (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will carry on this discussion at Talk:Environmental issues with energy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously notable topic; needs more sources; can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see how we need this article and Energy and the environment as well. Johnfos (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Energy and the environment and Environmental issues with energy are both overview articles and titles give an indication of the areas they cover. Both should exist as per the hierarchy I outlined in Talk:Environmental issues with energy. Also, given the number of links on the Environmental issues with energy page it is obvious that an overview page is needed to tie them all together. If the page is deleted as suggested the content will have to be included elsewhere. Then, given the way that WP is expanding, a page would have to be recreated at some future point. WP has been developing in an organic bottom up method. What I am trying to do is some top down article creation. The two articles mentioned here should exist. Deleting them does not assist the WP project at all. Expanding them would. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alan, you might be trying to do this and trying do that, and you have ideas about future WP coverage. But I'm interested in the here and now, and what is most appropriate for readers who have no clue about your hierachy or top down approach. It doesn't make sense to confuse things by having many small articles when fewer longer ones will suffice. Only one article on Energy and the environment is needed at this stage. Johnfos (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Having a stub article on a clearly defined topic with a large number of links does help readers. It is effectively a disambiguation page, and there are plenty of those on WP. The page is easily turned into a full length article but no one has done it as yet. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator suggested that some content can be merged into the sustainability article. That would be the wrong thing to do. Sustainability it the opposite to the thrust of this article. This also highlights the need to have an overview article (Energy and the environment) to tie the two together. Energy is a big topic and so there is a need to have a large number of articles to give it a decent coverage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As usual, Alan, you "disagree" with what others are suggesting and see it as "the wrong thing to do". You seem intent on pushing your own agenda. Johnfos (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with disagreement. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion such as saying someone is wrong. As for pushing my own agenda in WP can you tell me how I would be able to do that? Everything here relies on consensus and is able to be freely edited. And so what is my agenda?? You say "As usual, Alan, you "disagree" with what others are suggesting..." That is totally untrue. I do not "usually disagree" with others. Go and check my 30,000 edit history for evidence of "usual disagreement" and then get back to me with your findings! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. An example of how a stub page of links can develop quite quickly in something with a little more substance can be seen here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Let's face it Alan, you have started many "Environmental issues with" articles, sometimes in the face of opposition from other editors, eg., Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam. Other editors' opposition often just does not seem to matter and you push ahead with your own POV anyway.  In fact it seems to me that you are often on for an argument to justify what you have done and your many entries on this page is evidence of that.  I count myself as an environmentalist but see what you are doing as extreme righteous pushing of an environmental agenda on WP. Johnfos (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have created many environmental issues articles because I feel that they are appropriate given that WP has almost 3,000,000 articles and there is an increasing interest in the environment. Yes there was, and still is no consensus, to my creation of the Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam article. (Just remembered that another one was relating to DDT) Please note your wording - call it opposition if you like but the more accurate wording is "lack of consensus". And so you give me one example of where there is no consensus about one of the pages the I have created. How about you check out all the other pages I created (you can see some here and here) How about you use the consensus process rather than making comments on my so called agenda. Put forward cogent arguments against the edits that I do rather than making personal attacks on me. You think I am not NPOV and have an "extreme righteous pushing of an environmental agenda". Well that is utter crap. Have you ever thought about the fact that as someone studying the environmental sciences that it would logically follow that I edit articles about environmental issues? And besides, what am I getting out of the "agenda"? Certainly not fame and fortune! Person attacks that waste my time is what I am getting at the moment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You really sound quite angry, Alan, so there is little point in discussing this further now. But if at some future time you are open to more feedback, please contact me. Johnfos (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Angry - yes, a little bit and certainly not "quite angry". Please try and not make assumptions about me. But why don't we both get back to the job at hand and discuss the merits of whether this article should exist on WP. NO WP pages are a forum for the stuff we have put here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Putting the article up for deletion does wonders for the traffic stats !! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with a redirect to Energy and the environment. I see no compelling arguments why the two are different. The onus is on the new article to define why it's meaningfully different, to the point that those advantages overcome the inhernet disadvantages of a fork. It creates more work, opens up the possibility of contradictory issues and conversations on those views, and most of all, it's a total pain for a read to read two or three articles when they're looking for an article on one thing. Someone should explain why these two need to be separate. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Repies:
 * The article titles, which reflects the content, gives a strong indication as to the difference. Compare it to Energy and Energy (society)
 * The article is not a content fork - it is the next level of the topic hierarchy
 * I would argue that having two clearly defined articles early on is less work than having to extricate info from an article at some future date to form a new article. Both articles are easily expanded even with just using info that is in the current WP articles
 * Having the separate articles with clearly defined titles gives readers an indication as to which article they should read.
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with a redirect to Energy and the environment per Shadowjams. I understand the argument of topic hierarchy; however, right now there is a little useful content and it seems (I am not saying it is, but it definitely seems) as a content fork. Merging these two articles will create a more comprehensive article about this topic. Also, the current title is not neutral as mentioned by Teahot. Beagel (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is a fork then all the pages in Category:Environmental issues and Category:Criticisms etc are in the same boat. This article is not a content fork because they are separate, although closely related topics. I created thetwo pages because they are both notable topics and therefore should exist on WP. They may only be short articles at present but I am sure that they will grow into longer articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I created Uranium mining in Australia as a collection of links similar to my first incarnation of this page. Now look how it has grown thanks to the efforts of an editor who expanded it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion. I fail to see why an article of global interest and significance is put up for deletion when articles of a local interest or of a far lesser notability and size are retained. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 26 July 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.