Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of energy topics

List of energy topics

 * Article was originally Energy directory, moved by creator to Master List of Energy Topics, and now I've moved it to List of energy topics. Samaritan 15:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Not an encyclopedic article, just a collection of links. Could be a category, but there are already categories like Category:Energy and Category:Renewable energy. Furthermore, an "Energy directory" should include all sorts of energy concepts, not just concepts from Free energy suppression and renewable energy. There are already articles like Future energy development and Renewable energy. Therefore, delete.Ultramarine 22:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have made the article more NPOV by including other kinds of energy sources. However, I still think it should be deleted. It is to broad to have as a list. There are thousands of energy topics like the current inclusion Heliostat. All of these cannot be listed in a single article. That is what the category system is for. Ultramarine 03:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Preface
Major arguments for keeping the Energy directory and not moving it to the Energy Category page. Ultramarine, I am the one who created this index page that you wish to delete. I have spent a lot of time building it and preparing it as a destination I can send people to that compiles the vast work that has been done at Wikipedia in the area of energy. I could not find any one place that did what this page does. That is why I built it. No, it is not an "encyclopedic" page itself per se. It is an index page. Even encyclopedias have tables of contents for topics at Wikipedia that address Energy in general, but especially which address cutting edge energy technologies and issues that move us closer to cleaner, renewable, less expensive energy solutions. The world needs this information, and the thousands of contributors to Wikipedia's contents have done a fabulous job of building an excellent resource. The purpose of this page is to highlight that great work that has been done. I have been pushing this page, and it is tremendously embarrassing to me to have a "up for deletion" notice on it. What a slap in the face. That is why I removed the notice and replaced it with a single line of text. I will be seeking audience with Jimbo or someone else at Wikipedia admin to confirm what I have done here, and remove this votes for deletion link altogether. Please know that I respect your watchfulness and care to keep Wikipedia "encyclopedic." I am not taking issue with that. There are exceptions to every rule, and this page should be one of those instances. It is a table of contents. If you want a balanced presentation (which I have tried to supply), and you think the topics are lopsided, then add the topics of relevance. No problem. -- Sterlingda 23:13, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias have tables of contents. That is what this page is for Energy listings at Wikipedia.
 * The "Category" feature does not allow brief explanatory notes next to the link.
 * The "Category" feature is not very conducive to branching into sub-pages when a particular section gets too long.
 * The "Category" feature does not allow images to be posted other than in the intro section.

Just a little about myself I am the Founder and Executive Director of PES Network Inc. It owns and operates http://peswiki.com which uses the Wikimedia software, and has grown into a fairly sizeable and popular website. Another site we operate is http://freeenergynews.com Please review the Kudos page there to get an idea of the calibur of work we do. I am not a newcomer to wikis. I value them and know what they can do. -- Sterlingda 23:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

A Plea to Jimbo Wales
I have sent the following email to Jimbo:

Hi Jim, Sterling Allan here. Username: sterlingda. Perhaps you will remember me from Dec. 2003 when I first came aboard Wikipedia and tried to get an energy project page going and was bood away. I have since founded a company, built a wiki, and have several very respectable sites. See: http://freeenergynews.com/kudos/ On May 2, I built a new directory page at Wikipedia to feature the various pages there dealing with energy. Energy directory Now it is slated for deletion. I have responded to the proposed action. I have removed the usual Vfd notice and replaced it with a single line of text with a link to the call for that action. After having promoted the page so much, it is embarrassing for me to have people I've referred go there and see the "This page is slated for deletion" notice. Ouch. Please intervene. A phone call would be appreciated. I put a lot of time into that page, and think it will really boost Wikipedia. What I have in mind is to link all of the pertinent energy related pages back to this page as a central table of contents where the reader can get more information. Sterling D. Allan Sterling D. Allan Executive Director, PES Network Inc [phone number] (GMT-6) Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA http://pureenergysystems.com http://freeenergynews.com http://peswiki.com http://pesn.com -

How about listing as Category?

 * Comment It appears that each section of the Energy directory page could be created as a subcategory of Category:Energy, since they are just collections of articles. Then Category:Energy can be a central table of contents for all pertinent energy related pages.  Isn't that the purpose of the category page?  If Category:Energy doesn't link all of the pertinent articles, or misses out on subcategorizing them in useful ways, why not improve the category? --Tabor 00:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. There could even be a category for "Claimed suppressed free energy technologies" or something similar. This still means that this article should be deleted, it is not encyclopedic. It is troubling that the creator claims that just his article should be an exception from the usual Wikipedia format so that it can promote his POV about energy development. Ultramarine 00:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful navigation page. Categories are not lists, or directories. Kappa 00:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sterling's reply to Tabor. That would be a reasonable approach if the Category page were not automatically generated. Category pages should be kept fairly clean, so that people can get right to the automated list of pages that evoke that category.  A brief intro is fine and appropriate, but this Energy directory page can/should become branched, and that does not lend itself to the Category feature.
 * Keep. This is a list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense now that there is additional content on the page. It's an annotated list of links, which distguishes it from a category at least. Two more questions then: if it is a list, isn't there a convention for "List of XYZ"?  If it is intended to develop into something more prose-heavy, why doesn't it belong in a proper article like Energy? --Tabor 01:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is more along the lines of a portal page than a list; perhaps it should be moved to the Wikipedia/Wikiportal area?-gadfium 03:08, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a useful page no reason to delete. Megan1967 04:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorify or listify but in any case, subdivide. Gazpacho 05:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article appeared to contain an advertisement for something called the "Open Source Energy Network". I removed the ad. Mirror Vax 11:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at this entirely unprecedented, naming convention-violating title, not with its own logo that not only self-references Wikipedia but uses the name of Sterlingda's outside concern. Listify, maybe to list of energy topics, and break into other lists as needed if expanded. It could become a Wikiportal if someone wanted to refactor it that way. Keep the collection, but there should not be an article at the title energy directory. Samaritan 12:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sterling's Response
Did you read my response on the "votes for deletion" page? Did you read my letter to Jimbo Wales? You are vandalizing a legitimate page by defacing it with a "vote to delete" notice. I will be supremely disappointed if this goes through.
 * It is not a defacement to place a VfD notice on a page, unless that is done in bad faith. It is not appropriate to remove or alter the wording of such a notice. After five days, if the article is kept, the VfD notice will be removed by the person summing the vote.-gadfium 03:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sterling's Reply
What about vandalism to a legitimate page by posting a Vfd notice when the page does not deserve it, but is in actuality a very productive, Wikipedia mission-congruent page -- a major table of contents akin to a home page for an entire area of study: energy, which is a highly pertinent issue in our day. It is an eyesore to see a Vfd notice on a key page, and it should not be allowed. There should be some kind of penalty for people who post such notices and don't look at the larger picture.

I understand what Vfd is for generally, and I concur with the rules pertaining to it generally. But there are exceptions to every rule. If I were to go to a completely legitimate page that has been at Wikipedia for years, and post a Vfd notice at the top, according to your rule, no one could take it down for a week until it had been voted on. But of course, that is ludicrous. The person posting the Vfd was the one out of line, not the page. That is an example of a legitimate exception to your rule.

That is what has happened here. That is why I am requesting you to stand down and let the page be. I am also requesting of an admin to review the case so the one-line notice can be removed as well.

Don't be so hog wild about rules. That is what brought us Nazi Germany -- "Just following orders." I expect better. Sterlingda 00:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * We'll never have Nazis here. Wikipedia is Communism! --SPUI (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * More dialogue about the Vfd rule on sterlingda talk page - Sterling argues that the absolute rule of allowing Vfd to stay for a week no matter what needs to have an override ability in cases in which the Vfd is obviously not warranted, and its existence unnecessarily denigrates a page. Sterlingda 01:16, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Response to "Major arguments for keeping"

 * Encyclopedias have tables of contents. That is what this page is for Energy listings at Wikipedia.
 * In my experience here, this is usually accomplished by having a "List of..." page or category instead of a directory that attempts to supply some content instead of a simple enumeration. This seems to work quite well. Supplying small bits of content in the list seems like unnecessary duplication of content, which surely would create more work.
 * [sterling's response] The brief explanation of content is enormously helpful and is one of the reasons my directory pages and news pages a http://freeenergynews.com get such rave reviews. Wikipedia could use more of that. Even people with fast connections experience slow load times when server load is high. Who wants to click and wait and click and wait when you can see an overview at a glance?
 * The "Category" feature does not allow brief explanatory notes next to the link.
 * I don't see much value in such notes. The whole point (or at least a large point) of having such a heavily-hyperlinked encyclopedia is that a brief explanation is only a click away. See point #1.
 * The "Category" feature is not very conducive to branching into sub-pages when a particular section gets too long.
 * Is this even a problem here? Regardless, categories seem to handle large numbers of items just fine in terms of navigation. From what (admittedly little) I know of the category system, this seems like exactly the sort of problem they make easy to manage.
 * [sterling's response] The idea is to have one location that people can bookmark as a central clearing house on the subject of energy. That index page needs to be well organized, and instructive at the same time. Just a link to a page is not as instructive.
 * The "Category" feature does not allow images to be posted other than in the intro section.
 * The images currently attached to this article seem to have very minimal value, and much of that small value seems to be purely aesthetic. On top of all of this, if the page describes itself as focusing on "clean, renewable sources", it hardly qualifies as an "energy directory". Like it or not, unclean, non-renewable sources are hugely important around the world. At the very least, the title of the page must be changed to reflect this bias. HorsePunchKid 02:58, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
 * [sterling's response] I think all things energy should be housed here. No problem. Regarding images, human beings like visual along with their presentation. It ads a nice touch to have a few pertinent images. A picture is worth a thousand words.


 * Forgot to mention it, but in case it wasn't clear, I vote delete, with rename as a second choice. HorsePunchKid 03:01, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

More Votes

 * Break into separate articles named List of energy terms, List of energy generation processes, List of energy inventors, etc. and cleanup to conform to WP protocol. Having a special logo for your favorite page is not OK. And Sterling, longer arguments aren't necessarily better ones. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with subdividing as long as there is a central page that indexes it all. I could not see on Choosing appropriate illustrations where the image thing you mentioned is addressed.  Please elaborate. -- Sterlingda 06:09, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Avoid self-references. Samaritan 12:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points raised. Thanks. -- Sterlingda 13:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a work in progress, and could do with some more clean-up. I have done some work, and, over time, otehrs will continue the work to bring this up to Wikipedia standard. There are thousands of list articles at List of lists, so there is no reason that a "List of energy topics" should be deleted.
 * I see no reason to argue, though, that this should be exempt from the VfD process. It has happened to articles that I have written, too, and in the end, if it helps bring an article up to standard, it is not a bad thing.
 * I'm afraid that the "embarassment" arguement doesn't work. If you don't want others to edit your work and nominate it for deletion, then I guess you shouldn't post here. You will find people who will support your work in VfDs, however, so I encourage you not to give up, just accept that this is a part of the Wikipedia process of building an encyclopedia. Ground Zero 15:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this argument holds absolutely no water. When creating/editing an article, it says at the bottom of the page in a nice bold font: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. Article space is for community-edited articles. If the community decides to radically change or delete an article, well, that's the way it goes. "I'm pointing colleagues/associates to this page, so don't mess with it" is incredibly flawed thinking, given that absolutely anyone with an Internet connection can edit the page. Imagine your embarrassment if the article is truly vandalized to contain Pokémon or pornography.
 * Sterling, you say you understand the value of Wikis, but I'm afraid you don't understand the community nature of Wikipedia. If you request exceptions to long-standing rules for a pet article and make allusions to Nazism, as you have done, it will only serve to frustrate and anger those that might be able and willing to improve your contributions. I'm concerned about the attitude and arrogance displayed by these actions. Despite this, I vote to Keep, pending cleanup. It looks like a beginning of a useful list article, which will hopefully grow in usefulness as the community edits it. android&harr;talk 16:25, May 6, 2005 (UTC)