Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public plans for energy efficient refurbishment


 * 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. but there is a strong consensus that the article needs some serious work, or even restructured altogether. SpinningSpark 08:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Public plans for energy efficient refurbishment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is not notable as its an arbitrary list of government plans and policies. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, product announcements, case studies and detailing various red tape procedures. It doesn't document a culturally significant phenomenon and doesn't have a sufficiently wide interest to merit its own article. We have no other "Public plans for ..." articles. Much of the content can go out of date when governments change their policy or themselves change. Shiftchange (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, on the basis that most public government schemes to incentivise or support green building refurbishment are likely to attract significant press coverage (or authoritative study). However, as the nominator says, the current article is riddled with problems, including excessive (unjustified?) detail about schemes and excessive repeats of existing articles (e.g. The Green Deal). The article may serve as a useful overview of the situation in different countries and probably justify split-off articles being created about the major schemes (some Western European countries are way ahead with these schemes, though are less likely to be detailed on the English Wikipedia). The current article title is problematic. I think the word "plans" in the article title is misleading, it suggests future plans, rather than existing (or previously existing) schemes. All of these issues can be resolved on the article's talk page, rather than at AfD. Overall the article needs massive clean up and re-thought rather than deletion. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Weak keep", because I could understand why others would prefer to WP:BLOWITUP or return it to a draft state to userify it. The problems are major. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix. I don't think that any valid rationale for deletion has been advanced. James500 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic is author created, not sourced; by which I mean the author has taken a distinction that is not observed in his sources and attempted to create a classification that is not separately recognized by the articles cited about the topic. The articles are all details about energy efficiency in a variety of contexts. The author has tried to stuff in way too much in order to create a broad  topic. The piecemeal presentation is a result of the lack of sources dealing with the overall topic. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What guideline or policy are you invoking? Mere juxtaposition is not an original synthesis. Do the items not satisfy the criteria? Are any of them not government schemes that do in fact incentivise energy efficient building refurbishment (whether or not they incentivise anything else)? It isn't possible to determine whether a list satisfies LISTN just by looking at the sources cited in the list. You are supposed to use a search engine to look for sources. James500 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is synthesis, taking a bunch of quasi-related material and trying to construct a topic. I looked for sources dealing with the overall topic and only found piecemeal, such as government reports out of Dublin, or green NGOs' mission statements.  There may be academics who have tackled this as a topic, but I didn't find any.  Have you? --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Original synthesis does not consist of the construction of a topic. Original synthesis requires some kind of factual assertion that is not supported by evidence. What would that assertion be? James500 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are asserting it is a coherent topic where the global overview has been widely studied. In reality it would be better served by an extended list article which could navigate between separate articles on each notable scheme (hence my 'weak' keep recommendation). Sionk (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What is point of an article which lists cherry-picked government policy on schemes which can be scrapped by the next government? In 10 years time, 75% of the article will be out of date.  All the details covered have no long-term significance.  We aren't here to document what is covered by the article.  At best some of the material could be trimmed down and then merged into the "Energy policy in ..." articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is beginning to sound like an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Subjects don't need to be permanent or up-to-date to be notable enough for a Wikpedia entry. Sionk (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - Topic is notable. Organization of coverage may need to be improved but that can be worked out on the article's talk page not here. ~KvnG 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you assert the topic is notable? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it looks to me like this article is acting as a WP:SUMMARY for the overall concept of government efficiency programs. These programs, take independently, are clearly notable. A summary of a bunch of closely-related notable programs is notable and is useful to readers. ~KvnG 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How are they closely related? Other than dealing with energy efficiency, all of these government agencies are entirely 'unrelated'. Neutralitytalk 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete from namespace and userfy. The topic probably deserves its own article (notwithstanding its exact title) but in its current shape has major problems. In general I agree with User:Shiftchange, but also with User:Sionk. However, I think that in this case the clean up and re-thought should be done at the userfied namespace and not at the main namespace. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * note to closing admin has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some people can read quickly and some topics are obviously notable. James500 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * that is a very poor explanation for user j 1982's voting behavior which several other editors have warned him about. "Some topics are obviously notable" is an very weak reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Obviously notable" is often a very strong argument for keeping because Google has difficulty sorting results in order of relevance. Buckets are obviously notable, but there is no indication of that in this first page of results. James500 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:J 1982 did not say "obviously notable". We're not voting, we're trying to form a consensus. A good-faith "as above" contribution is not particularly productive. ~KvnG 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you provide an explanation as to why the article should be kept? If you read WP:NOTCASE, specifically point 9 in the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal section it excludes articles like this one. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keeop, but remove most of the detailed contents to separate articles.  DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So what would be left? The article is simply a cherry-picked list of recent government policies and case studies in high detail.  That doesn't belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A WP:SUMMARY would be left. ~KvnG 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article contains too much discussion of aims, predicted savings and future goals, which are all speculative. A majority of the article just repeats procedures from primary sources.  There is limited criticism or review of the programs or policies and very little context.  Because of these reasons, it in now way provides a summary.  If a program or policy is notable it deserves it owns page such as The Green Deal or PACE financing.  The ideal spot for a summary of this subject matter is on the various "Energy policy of" articles like the Energy efficiency section at Energy policy of the United States.  If we are to have a list of government energy efficient refurbishment plans then lets create a simple list with a table which provides a true summary and a clear way to compare them. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have some constructive ideas for improving organization of this topic area. You're right that the material can be summarized in "Energy policy of" articles but it is also useful to give an international summary of efficiency policy. The article is not a disaster. We can delete the poorly sourced and speculative bits. Why do you think it necessary to delete this entire article to improve organization? ~KvnG 00:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Seems like a WP:SYNTHESIS, almost an WP:ESSAY, an awkward umbrella term for an energy-conservation POV, with a prime problem being that when searching for the ungainly article title, Public plans for energy efficient refurbishment, in a browser bar, it is hard to find with that exact sequence of words in any reliable sources. So, the article creator has grabbed disparate information, and the original research is that all of these different activities, in different countries, all belong under the same umbrella under this "refurbishment" idea. Looking over the article, my eyes blur; what is it about? It seems to delve into detailed aspects of the subject (as if the reader already agreed with the writer that energy conservation measures by agencies was a good thing, a given), like the reader has stumbled into a government-sponsored energy funding meeting, and has no clue what is going on. The article needs context, distance, a neutral perspective to approach the subject objectively. If the article can be trimmed down, refocused possibly, it might be worthwhile but at this point it seems easier to delete it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly in the nature of an essay, rather than a topic. It basically groups together entirely unrelated initiatives from around the world. Any actual link between these programs can be explored through categories or through other pages (e.g., Weatherization, Energy conservation, green building. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 28 August 2014 (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.