Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydraulic geoengineering


 * 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   speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hydraulic geoengineering

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

Neologism, per WP:DEL. The few sites that mention this term are mostly Wikipedia mirrors, or blog posts by authors of the article. The article should be deleted and any usable material it contains should be merged into the relevant articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in addition to the reason given by Boris, this is completely original research. None of these projects have been described as hydraulic geoengineering. As the lead states, they are "hydraulic engineering projects [that] could be considered to be geoengineering". Of all the sources cited that I could verify, none of them classify these projects as geoengineering, they are simply engineering projects that the author considers to be geoengineering. -Atmoz (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment after move by AJL: Delete as before. No changes to the article. Topic is still original research. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per nom and Atmoz William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete not a single of the references i checked has mention of geoengineering let alone hydraulic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete - as AJL said about the name: "I made it up". The valid sourced material could be used elsewhere - minus the speculative stuff. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * move content to a new page, or pages, to be agreed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now ready for redirect to hydraulic engineering. Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold your horsies, this is barely relevant to 99% of hydraulic engineering. Maybe its scope should be changed to "Proposed large projects in [discipline]" or something like that, but I can't see any single discipline to which this applies. Some hydraulic engineering, some environmental engineering, and some completely speculative local projects (such as Australia's). I'm not sure if I can find a good term for it. Maybe "proposed massive projects in engineering"? Awickert (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've userfied it. I'll find something to do with the text later.  sPEEDY CLOSE.
 * Text now at large-scale hydraulic engineering projects and water oxygenation. I've left the AfD template on the redirect page but I'm not sure I did right.  If people think it is better they might want to redirect to hydraulic engineering or geoengineering instead, but I think the current one is best. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion

Seems like it needs a new home. Any ideas for a new name? Large-scale hydraulic engineering? Hydraulic engineering (large scale)? Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

We need a new page, to be called Geoengineering_projects, with an overview of all geoengineering projects. Projects should be sortable by type (which could include hydraulic). Until we have such an overview, I suggest we leave this page as is. --Sam.carana (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interested parties can store the information as a user sandbox page if they are serious about developing a valid home for the content. Most seems copied from your blog post mentioned above. Vsmith (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Atmoz, are you saying that the new article should be removed as well? I think that large-scale hydraulic engineering projects should probably be changed to proposed large-scale hydraulic engineering projects, but it seems like a valid category to me to list off these projects. Awickert (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed in the article. And nothing will change. That's AJLs MO. Throw up the smokescreen, and maybe people won't realize you haven't actually done anything. Of the references I checked, none were actually supporting their claims. AJL does this a lot. KDP reports the same above. Repeat: nothing has changed except the title. -Atmoz (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The title was the reason for deletion under WP:NEO. The text has been split up, with the bulk of it ending up under a title which I believe Awickert suggested.  I acutally wrote very little of this article.  Feel free to tag and banner the destination articles if you don't like them.  Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For comparison: AJL Article, Article now, diff. Clearly showing that the article hasn't changed substantially since it was written by AJL. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The geoengineering part is dubious, but the projects themselves do seem to exist. Remove the "geoengineering" bit from it? It seems to be only in the lede. And then keep geoeng in the see also? I believe that this would work. Awickert (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See geoeng article if you need a def.  These projects do fit the definition, but the term wasn't invented when these projects were proposed.  I don't mind re-titling the article, which is what I did, but geoeng still deserves a mention.  Anyway, such a minor pt. is not relevant to AfD.  The article needs a new AfD if you think it should go.  I'll banner if for cleanup. Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I got pissed off with AJL pratting around moving the thing that was destined to die and losing the talk pages, so I've deleted it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aight, let's go from here. It seems the big deal was the title and the geoeng not being supported. Although it may fall under geoeng now, there isn't a RS that says so, so we should just simplify it and remove that part for now. Therefore, from reading the comments, I disagree with AJL and believe the "minor" geoeng bit was the only part relevant to AfD. Remove that, and there's a halfway-decent article about some wild proposed projects. I therefore propose to restore the content and the associated talk page, with geoeng statements stripped except for a see also, at "Proposed large-scale_hydraulic_engineering_projects". Awickert (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SupportAndrewjlockley (talk) 20:41, 18 April 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.