Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil megaprojects (2020)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oil megaprojects (2020)

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

Delete. Topic already covered in Oil Megaprojects; the idea of spinning it off per year of production is quite frankly ridiculous, especially considering the small amount of information on offer. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There will be more info for the year 2020. If you look at Oil Megaprojects for 2008 - 2015, you will see that there are many records listed by year. Tonyeriksen (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete It is not WP's job to predict the future. Redddogg (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't? Well damn, there goes the 'US Election 2044' page I was working on. Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see second paragraph; "Individual items from a predetermined list...are not suitable article topics"), nor is it an indiscriminate collection of statistics. This is listcruft. Noir (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Oil Megaprojects. One article for all of these is fine. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really valid; all the content already exists there. The creation of this page was basically a page split rather than the creation of new content. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The content of this new page is all new and includes 6 projects so far. The creation of this page was not a page split as there were no previously listed projects for the year 2020.  In particular the 200,000 barrels per day contribution from the Chicontepec basin is not only a new supply addition record but it is critical to offsetting Mexican oil production declines from other fields such as Cantarell. The total cost of the Chicontepec project is estimated to be $US30 billion http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0543390520090105. Future oil production from Chicontepec is very important to the Mexican economy and also potentially provides oil exports to the USA.  The Chicontepec field also has its own WP entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicontepec.  The reason that one page per year is done for the Oil Megaprojects is that it gives a uniform structure and allows web pages to be a reasonable length.  For example, Oil megaprojects (2008) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects_(2008) has about 60 projects supported by 137 references. Tonyeriksen (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point; there are not enough projects for 2020 yet. There will probably be more announced over the next few years, but keeping this page around on that chance is pointless. wikipedia is not a crystal ball; if and when those new projects are announced the page can be recreated. 2008 had 60 megaprojects, yes, but we are not debating the deletion of that page. Other Stuff Exists is not a valid argument in an AfD. Ironholds (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tonyeriksen. This is not "crystal ballery", it's documentation of largescale projects that are currently planned to start producing at a certain time.  Given the significance of long-term planning in energy infrastructure and analysis, it seems like a completely reasonable article.  It's near enough in the future that documented planning and development is already going on.--ragesoss (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Potentially important for understanding Hubbert Peak Oil theory.Critical Chris (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * potentially important? See WP:CRYSTAL. Ironholds (talk) 20:30, 16 January 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.