Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics (2nd nomination)


 * 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 really didn't want this to be the result, but there are so many different arguments to keep/delete/merge this article, most of which have some merit to them. No one position seems to have more support either in numbers or policy than any other, so we're left with no consensus as the result. I strongly suggest a merge or re-organization discussion be pursued as a follow-up to this process in the hopes of avoiding a third go round here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

List of environmental organisations topics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

"I think I have figured out what exactly makes this article inferior to List of environmental organisations topics, which was turned into a redirect to Environmental organization, against AFD protocol (a no consensus vote, which defaults to Keep), by Liefting. It does not have a single positive issue. Not one. Under Energy alone, the L.o.e.o.t. has   Over 250 articles in all. Twice as many as this article. But what really makes the difference is that environmentalism is about more than pointing out problems, it is also about finding solutions. This article shows no solutions. Anarchangel (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There was no consensus on the previous Afd and it was suggested by the closing admin that it should be relisted if the issues were not resolved - so here it is again! The list is a broad range of links to topics of which some stray far from the brief of environmental organisation.  Some of the more relevant stuff should be turned into prose and placed in the environmental organisation article, which is a stub at present (another reason to not have this list). The article name is not a search string that would ever be used so it should be deleted rather than redirected. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Months have passed since the nominator was specifically advised against voting in their own AfD and the nominator giving an apology and a correction, and yet, to paraphrase the nominator, "here it is again". Anarchangel (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making a misrepresentation to build a case against me. This is very bad form. In the last nomination a premature save of an edit and the use of the wrong word was correct. It has no bearing on this Afd. And so what if I said "here it is again"? You can read what you like into that phrase but it has no bearing on this discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of environmental issues There is a rationale for 'organizations' in this title, which is that it encompasses issues which are thought of as 'green' by experts in that field, that are largely unknown as such to the public at large. However, as it flies in the face of common knowledge knowledge on the subject, it will continue to be a source of contention. While it is a shame for the few articles which deserve a listing to be left out, it would be a greater shame for the entire list to disappear completely. The great strength of this article has always been that it is superior in depth of coverage to List of environmental issues, and now that it has gained its text format and links, it is superior altogether. I have trimmed it considerably already to remove issues that were overreaching, and so I know where the remaining weak points are. I have also compared it to "..issues" numerous times, and will be glad of the additional listings that that article has, which fill in gaps in "...topics". I am confident that I can merge material in a way that will be satisfactory to most readers and WP editors, other than the obvious one. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Minutes before this AFD, I placed this on the List of environmental issues talk page. Both the original comment and the reply are relevant.
 * Alternative fuels
 * Biomass
 * Energy conservation
 * Energy efficiency
 * Fossil fuels
 * Fuel cells
 * Geothermal energy
 * Hydroelectric energy
 * Nuclear energy
 * Solar energy
 * Wind energy
 * Correction: 234 articles, including the 29 articles linked to by the section headings. List of environmental issues only has 127; the threadbare state of that article was quite clearly pointed out in the last AFD, four months ago, but nothing has been done about it.Anarchangel (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Creating the redirect has absolutely nothing to do with the afd "protocol". The article was not deleted and you are quite free to revert my edit if you do not agree with it. As for the content of this article versus List of environmental organizations topics would you not agree that they are quite separate topics? This article is about environmental issues - ie. the effect of humans on the environment. The List of environmental organizations topics is a list of sustainability topics, environmental issues, a small collection of science disciplines and a bunch of other stuff that is far too broad to be of use. Also, note that the number of links is not a criteria to judge an article merit. Usefulness and coherence are a couple of criteria that I can think of as a way of evaluating articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)"


 * Liefting is sort of hard to pin down, when it comes to doing something that user does not like to do. Liefting started an AFD, I fought it tooth and nail, and got it closed no consensus, which defaults to keep. Liefting turned the article into a redirect. Months later, I find the article, which was supposed to have been kept, has been a redirect for months. I called Liefting on it, that user feigned disinterest and claimed to welcome the article's return. I restored it. Now Liefting wants to pretend that the article is trespassing on Wikipedia ("here it is again"), when in fact the article was nowhere in mainspace for months, and the redirect was trespassing on the article's rights, and that the 'issues were not resolved', when in fact the article was in mainspace to be worked on for no more than ten minutes. Liefting had this AFD up before I was able to make this edit to remove redlinks. Anarchangel (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not true Anarch. Can I use your first name? I find the use of first names so much more friendly than last names. Using my last name makes it sound like your are pissed off with me. You are not pissed off with me are you? But seriously, can you please focus on the merits, if any, of the article. You have made a lot of assumptions about my behaviour towards the article which has absolutely no bearing on the deletion discussion. For fear of being called a hypocrite I will address your comments. The page is on my watchlist which shows that I have an interest in it. The fact that I put it up for deletion after you removed my rediect shows that I have a strong interest in it. By the way, you did not "call me", I was alerted by my watchlist. You say that I am pretending that it is "trespassing on Wikipedia". You are trying to paint an inaccurate picture of me by using this sort of language. You say "trespassing on the article's rights". This is odd language. No article has "rights". WP is fluid. Any editor can do what they like with an article and the existence of an article is decided by consensus. The article is an orphan so it will not get any attention for the community and no one bothered to address the shortcomings after the last Afd. The solution is deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You claim only that it "stray[s] far from the brief of environmental organisation[s]" as a shortcoming. I have listed two merits (comprehensiveness and inclusion of positive issues). I have pointed out some of your multiple, significant, and chronic procedural misdeeds and subversions of the process, the ones that are relevant to this article. The article is fine. The solution is a topic ban for you. Perhaps then you will learn that it is not true that "Any editor can do what they like with an article". Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make threats based on your perception of my behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course, if the list is not appropriate to Environmental organizations, why is that where Liefting redirected it? Anarchangel (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, do not understand. "Why not", as in, if a breezy, dismissive, patronizing attitude works for you, why not use it, or "why not", as in, you are so far removed from moral reality that you not cannot even see how calling it inappropriate yet using it yourself is hypocritical? Anarchangel (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about being civil and answer the question rather than making assumptions about my attitude. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Since any environmental issue is a de facto subject for any given environ. org. to work on, this seems entirely redundant to any and all lists of environmental topics. also, any org. can choose to work on any issue as they define themselves. a group which works on environmental issues may also focus on environmental racism, and have a project promoting a wide range of services to a minority community. I see a problem with too broad an area to have objective inclusion criteria. I would prefer to see a list of environmental organizations with a summary of their primary foci as reflected in their articles. for this current list to work, each individual item on the list would have to show in their article that a number of environmental organizations are working on them. to me, simply listing in each environ issue all the orgs which have touched on it is nonnotable. my example of why that is nonnotable: mad magazine parodies probably 1/4 or more of all mainstream movies. being parodied by mad is not notable, though its well documented. we dont include a mad parody in every movie article, its simply not relevant (unless it has garnered some greater attention). it would be notable if a major environmental issue was NOT addressed by any major organization, though we could not do the research on it ourselves. sierra club doesnt need a section in their article listing all the subjects they have ever worked on. their specific projects that garner attention are notable. my solution: just have articles on various orgs be categorized by the various areas they focus on, and have environmental issue articles mention major orgs that work on them. this is much more work, but it follows WP guidelines. I choose to not address the procedural issues, as to me the lists problems say it all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First you say that we "would have to show that" orgs are concerned with these issues, to be notable, then you say "it would be notable if a major environmental issue was NOT addressed by any major organization". Which is it? Either or both, as long as it sounds negative? Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge We have a List of environmental organizations but that doesn't say what they do. We also have a List of environmental issues but that doesn't link them to the organisations.  It would be sensible to merge all three lists together to form a sortable list of issues and the relevant organisations.   This seems to be much the same thinking as User:Mercurywoodrose.  His conclusion that we should therefore delete is incorrect because it is our editing policy to improve articles in mainspace rather then to delete them and their history and start again with nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In order to link the articles you mention you asking for some sort of searchable database. The List of environmental organizations is an extremely small subset of the total set. I have now marked it as and incomplete list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge with environmentalism. Handschuh-talk to me 08:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Turning some of the content into prose and adding it to environmentalism has some merit but that sort of info would also belong at environemntal organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged  UK  14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anyone considered turning this article into an outline? The title could be something like Outline of environmental issues or Outline of environmental policy.  Them From  Space  04:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A good writer could. WP is not safe for writers, who are empowered with no processes and only one policy page (Deletion policy), while deletionists are empowered by a handful of processes, of which AFD is only the most well known, and innumerable policy pages.
 * More of interest to our discussion here, articles which deserve to be listed stand a good chance of being left out of such an article, and the list does not contain all the articles that would be required for an outline. Anarchangel (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not true that WP is not safe for writers. 3,000,000 articles in nine years surely means that it is a haven for writers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stuff left out of an article is not an argument for retaining an article. The shortcomings of an article can be addressed by editors and is quite separate to deletion discussions. Deletion discussions are for the merits of whether an article should exist or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already an environmental issues article and an environmental policy article. There is also a Index of environmental articles, Category:Environment and Category:Environmental issues. I don't think there is room for the articles you mention. Also, outlines are set up as a hierarchy. Since environmental articles cross many areas of human knowledge it makes it difficult to place them in a neat hierarchy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I protest the relisting of this article for what amounts to a fourth time. Once in the previous AfD, this AfD, and now a second time within this AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it has only been relisted twice but this deletion discussion is remaining open because of the difficulty in getting a consensus. It seems perfectly reasonable to be to keep it open to get a wide enough discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet list criteria WP:SALAT this is what we have categories for. Too broad in scope. Also a real problem to pin inclusion criteria down particularly with reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. The problem with the article is the additional distinction of organizations, therefore that it is too specific, not that it is too diffuse. Inclusion criteria is always a mystery to editors ignorant of a subject, I suppose, or when it is convenient. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You completely fail to address my arguments and in citing vaguewave you do exactly what you are incorrectly accusing me of doing. Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, we already have a List of environmental issues. This current list is a poor unnecessary WP:content fork. Far too similar inclusion criteria to the point that it could easily be dealt with in the better named list already in existance. There is no point leaving a redirect from this terrible title and there is nothing sourced worth merging. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete due to the bizarre specificism to organisations. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Either this is basically intended to cover every single attribute of the environment (in which case the "organizations" part is totally useless) or it is intended to list issues basically in parallel with the extant list of environmental issues. As I doubt many organizations can deal with totally non-man-related issues , it appears that this list is of remarkably little value (especially since "organizations" are not even relevant to the issues listed.)  Practice in the past has been that only reasonably defined and limited lists belong on WP, so it is that standard which should be applied here. As the list is not limited in any way, and the use of "organization" appears to have no special relevance to the list, it fails. Collect (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why does its comprehensiveness make it inapplicable to organizations, what are these 'totally non-man-related issues', and please show how the list cannot be maintained in a 'reasonably defined and limited' manner. I also note that none of the arguments take not of and therefore preclude a merge. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The inclusion of particular items on a list is dealt with by editing, not deleting the list--no types of articles, lists included,   are expected to be perfect. It seems rather obvious  that environmental organizations are related to environmental issues,but are not the same as them, so two lists makes perfect sense to me. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list.  There must be some real concrete objection to the list, but  I cannot see it.   DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a List of environmental issues. So we have two lists already. WP:content fork. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep per meeting the inclusinog criteria for list by covering very notable subject matter. I would like to see the title improved and the article content fleshed out a bit, but this list if worthwhile and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If by title improvement you mean something like rewriting it as List of environmental issues then it looks like this has been done. Polargeo (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging the two lists seems like an okay idea to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Some topics lend themselves to list and some to prose. WP seems to get a number of lists that are better off as prose (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Prose&limit=500). This page should be prose - not a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is it is a list, and a poorly named one at that, which content forks other lists at best and it has no prose in it worth merging or moving anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant was prose as part of environmental organisation rather than retaining this list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 21 January 2010 (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.