Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)


 * 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   keep Sjakkalle  (Check!)  09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

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

WP:POVFORK from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm ambivalent about whether or not it's POV, but it looks like there's plenty of content, and content that's unique to the sub-topic and not appropriate in the stratospheric aerosols topic. If after removing POV statements it is as short as the part in the parent, then by all means delete. If the page does go away, a merge into Geoengineering might make more sense than a merge back into stratospheric aerosols, since the focus is on the geoengineering aspects, not necessarily the sulphur mechanism. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although for me it's about having the info, not so much where it is. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols is currently seen as a leading geoengineering technique, if not the leading technique.  Therefore, it definitely needs comprehensive treatment somewhere.  Mr.C. kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea.   I'd also be (just about) happy with a merge into Stratospheric sulfur aerosols buy ONLY if the comprehensive info was not affected.  If it went into geoengineering I think it would be too long an article, and not sufficiently focussed.  I accept that having loads of geoengineering stuff in Stratospheric sulfur aerosols would clutter it, so a keep seems the best idea.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  [ William M. Connolley ] kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea. Case = rested. A textbook case of a POV fork. Thank you for admitting so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with POV, any more than effects of global warming is POVfork from global warming. There's nothing POV about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to goeengineering.--Sloane (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete yet more noise from AJL; we really don't need a stream of badly written, inaccurate unreferenced articles. Its going to die eventually, must its death be prolonged and painful? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a vote for a cleanup, not a deletion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a total outsider on this topic. Please, let's not make this personal. Shadowjams (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up a bit:
 * improved the section layout
 * added sources where tags were found
 * re-edited arguable POV material

It still needs expanded citations and doi-sourced refs, which I'll crack on with now.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the recent edits, this article has plenty of potential Lets  drink Tea 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. When someone repeatedly removes information from an article. The correct course of action is to discuss it, seek wider input or try dispute resolution. Dropping the text in a separate article to avoid the confrontation is the textbook definition of POV fork. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The text was removed for IRRELEVANCE, not for POVfork. It's a different subject, much like chess and Gary KasparovAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please amend/addAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The possible use of these aerosols in Arctic geoengineering needs to be mentioned, and a clear distinction made between such Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques for cooling and techniques to reduce GHGs in the atmosphere. This article has plenty of potential, I agree.   John Nissen (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep — Article got lots of reliable references — Arteyu ?  Blame it on me !  20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is a natural summary/spinoff from the main article, dealing with a specific aspect of use for geoengineering. The articles are both sufficiently long and well-sourced, so I see no problem with the current organization. –  7 4   23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Referenced article which needs tweaking, which has been coming already.SriMesh | talk  02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Open tasks
 * Replace any non-notable links with sci. papers etc.
 * Check references cited support claims in article
 * Convert bare urls to cite-webs
 * ???Create disambiguation page for sulphate aerosols, stratospheric sulphur aerosols and stratospheric sulphur aerosols (geoengineering)
 * Keep the revised article, as it does seem to be NPOV, thus not a POVFORK anymore. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 3 March 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.