Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The environments future


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The environments future

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Raised as an issue at WT:CHEM. Basically, this is conglomeration of disparate information, mostly all included in their separate topics. It reads as WP:SYNTH, even though there are only a handful of sources. Izno (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, it reads like a WP:SYNTH project, not an article, and it plainly duplicates existing articles from Conservation downwards (that article lists many related topics). I'm sorry for the work involved, but the people have obviously learnt something of the basics of wiki-editing even if misdirected about what an article is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The content of this article definitely overlaps with existing articles, has problems with core Wikipedia tenets such as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and is written at least partly from a personal perspective ("It is common knowledge that this planet was created for everybody to live", for example).  ChemNerd (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Once the WP:SYNTH issues are addressed, what is left (if there is anything) can easily be included into other articles related to the topic. There is nothing to justify a standalone article when everything it addresses belongs in the articles listed in the sectionEnvironmental dour concerns. Sorry - kind of a word salad there but I believe you get the point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: What content there is that belongs on WP and is not under WP:CRYSTAL, item 3, belongs in articles on individual environmental topics (as CNMall41 notes) and not in an omnibus article. There are problems with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and the titling of the article shows the premise is a crystal issue in violation of WP:NOT.  This discussion brought the article to my attention, and according to its creator's user page, is related to this class project in which "students will learn art of Critical Thinking through argumentative styles such as Rogerian, Socratic, and Toulmin."  This article may be a good example of applying those skills, but not of an encyclopaedic topic, as it is basically open to endless opinions – just imagine what pro- and anti- global warning advocates will do with an article predicting the environment's future.  I don't see how this article can be rescued as it is based on a flawed and policy non-compliant premise.  It is unfortunate that the situation has reached this point without the student, the instructor , and the science content advisor  identifying the potential policy problem.  It appears that this is not a unique case for this course, as the article Issues of the Evolution v.s. Creation Debate from the course is duplicative of Creation–evolution controversy and has already led to a merge discussion which could easily become another deletion debate.  EdChem (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2016 (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.