Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  05:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

When readers see a link to the article they would expect more up to date info - so it wastes their time clicking it. I asked on the talk page but it seems no one, including me, thinks the article worth updating. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Chidgk1. This is historical data pertained to be recent. Not enough added value to justify an article. At this time, the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions should suffice. I am not against the idea of this article, just against the realization. For example the per capita version of this article with 2017 data is fine. We should use more recent data or WP:TNT. gidonb (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not that out of date, and it's still useful. It's marked as needing an update, which seem sufficient. -- Beland (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I calculated right the 2017 value for India is 1083 which is 24% more than the 875 in this article. I have not checked any other countries but as India is so significant I am not sure I need to.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Chidgk1, how much did China go up by the same calculation? gidonb (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * gidonb From List of countries by GDP (nominal) take the value in the 2017 column. Then divide by the 2017 value in List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions. So 12,234,781 divided by 12454.711 = 982 which is more than double the 2006 figure unless I made a mistake. This doubling seems plausible given the economic shift from industry to services.Chidgk1 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yep, that's plausable. Now many tables contain some historic data alongside more current figures. Nothing wrong with that. Au contraire. But being able to offer ONLY 2006 data, as if it were current, is not ok. gidonb (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I just realised another problem with this article is that it does not cover all greenhouse gases. So countries with high methane emissions, such as New Zealand, are misrepresented.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides the similarity noted above, there doesn't seem to be any notable sourcing of this topic online besides the report provided. No news articles even mention this ranking (kind of surprising since this looks like an interesting statistic in general). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (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.