Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Climate Alliance


 * 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 speedy keep. Consensus indicates that the topic is notable and the nomination erroneous. Philg88 ♦talk 04:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

United States Climate Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep/Neutral - I could easily see this being notable. I'd say weak keep for now, but I could easily see this get deleted. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I don't see how this could not be described as "notable". This alliance could be very significant for future international climate policy. Strong keep for now. Noahnmf (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2017 (PST)

Strong Keep - Significant coverage of this in reliable sources. Dont see a good reason to delete at all. Simonliyiyu (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep For Now - Seems significant for now. If nothing were to ever come for it, I might change my opinion later (with the benefit of hindsight). The Jade Knight (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

'Strong Keep' - Obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duanedel (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC) — Duanedel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep - I don't see how it's not significant. Just from the founding states, the overall GDP is > Germany and the population is > UK. Copulative (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep - As per above arguments Sherenk1 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep - It is way, wayyyy to early to be nominating this for deletion. This literally happened today, we don't know the details of what this alliance entails nor if any other states are going to be joining this alliance but that doesn't mean we need to rush to delete this. Give this a few days and see how it pans out.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 04:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for two reasons: 1) on procedural grounds: a nomination where the nominator couldn't be bothered explaining their rationale for deletion is worthless. 2) An agreement between several US states to take actions seems likely to be of lasting notability. I'd suggest that this nomination be closed as speedy keep due to the procedural issues. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. The nominator said that it's WP:NOTNEWS but this is a significant agreement with significant impacts between 3 governments that have a total population of over 65 million people and a 4 trillion GDP. Given the nominators lack of explanation as well as the near unanimous support for keep, I support the notion to quickly close this discussion. Copulative (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notable and likely to expand. Alexf505 (talk)
 * Strong and speedy keep - As someone who has been following this event and making edits to the main withdrawal article all day, I believe notability is unquestionable. NOTNEWS is an invalid argument for deletion in this case. As the aftermath of the withdrawal continues, so will coverage of this alliance. Personally I can already expect more states to join. 70.70.5.26 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2017 (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.