Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice sheet demolition


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ice sheet demolition

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

This article cites several sources. Most of them are either about icebreakers or related to this journal article. However, none of them are about ice sheet demolition. This article represents a synthesis about a topic related to arctic geoengineering. Google shows only hits that are copies of the WP article. There are no hits on news or scholar, and minimal coverage in books, all collections of abstracts about the same article. Fails WP:V. Atmoz (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Cerejota (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete an ill-concieved article; the topic doesn't really exist, the text and sources are terrible William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just posted text I was supplied with by a researcher, Albert Kallio. It needs improvement if it's to stay, so I've asked him to contribute.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * '''Merge to Arctic geoengineering. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It will still be sourceless original research if it is merged. -Atmoz (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

*Merge as above, in the absence of substantiative refs etcAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) **The text would need substative refs (to not look essay-like as it does now) regardless of whether it is its own article or part of another (merging is a terrible idea imo btw) Narayanese (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no evidence that this term is used by anyone (e.g. A Google search excluding the word Wikipedia). Therefore a redirect to Arctic geoengineering is unecessary, and merging content into that article would be a bad idea. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dealt with by moveAndrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Move as per article talk pageAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No move. Wikipedia is not a hosting space for your scientific exercises. I strongly suggest you to follow wikipedia rule, no original research. - 7-bubёn >t 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in any way in this research.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a piece of original reseacrh aggressively pushed into wikipedia by a "planetary geoenginering" team convened in some discussion/interest group I don't remember exacltly where with this exactly purpose: to write their stuff into wikipedia. They've been creating a bundle of plausibly-looking texts full of references but amounting to blatant OR. I struggled with them a bit, but decided it was not worth hassle for me.  I am glad that some other people found common sense and energy to deal with this. - 7-bubёn >t 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please evidence with references any OR as alleged.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note AJL Someone has now moved the article to Sea Ice Manipulation by Ice Chipping. The same arguments apply: it is a neologism with zero notability . Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 25 February 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.