Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulnerability reduction credit


 * 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. Consensus is to delete. A merge to the climate change adaption page is a possibility, but it appears the subject is already mentioned there and I am particularly concerns about the WP:SOAPBOX nature of the author's comment "Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits". v/r - TP 14:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Vulnerability reduction credit

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable idea. Appears to be the idea of a single organization, and, although published in Climate Change journal, has not been cited by any others. One idea among many, and no indications that this particular idea has caught on. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I tried to verify the trademark, but didn't find an entry that matches up with their title. My university doesn't subscribe to that journal either, so I couldn't read the original source. However, regardless to this, I think the idea was more of a time sensitive event if anything and will have no lasting notability. Unless someone could verify, bring new sources in, and shed light on the relevance of this particular credit system, I'd suggest the article be deleted. Lord Arador (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable concept by a non-notable person in a non-notable journal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Climate Policy is a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.630 and ranked highly among journals in its field. See http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/TCPO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.211.252 (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough point. Still doesn't make this concept notable.  A one-off article for which Google scholar lists 0 citations.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The author has completely rewritten the article, with many more references putting the VRC into the broader context of climate change mitigation, but without significantly improving the notability of the VRC itself. As such, the article might be a candidate for merging into the climate change mitigation article, noting the VRC as one of many approaches that have been suggested, but not tried.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits, and to this effect are engaging with all the academics and others cited in the revised article. If you think it would be useful to broaden, maybe we should rename the article "market based climate adaptation"?  It doesn't belong in climate mitigation, as it is a climate adaptation activity. Climatekarl (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I beg your pardon -- I'm no expert on the field of climate change so I picked the wrong merge target. There is already a climate change adaptation article as well, and it already mentions the VRC (thanks to ).  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No problem - as one who has been in the climate field for nearly two decades, I believe that the general climate adaptation section is too broad and "big" an entry for a detailed section on climate adaptation market based mechanisms.  I created the "climate adaptation finance" section to cover a broader set of issues, including VRCs but it would be unbalanced to have so much on market based mechanisms in there, even though I believe it is very important and the debate is hotting up over how to do it.  I'm no Wikipedia expert, but do you see what I'm getting at?  Climate adaptation finance is like "cars", and market based adaptation mechanisms is like "transmissions" - important, no doubt (and there is a transmissions entry!), and worth its own section, but a bit too detailed for a general discussion of cars.  Is that a reasonable analogy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climatekarl (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * merge into climate change mitigation as suggested, or if necessary, some narrower article. But not this: it is  not really a separate concept, just a slightly varying aspect with a different set of words. And Climatekarl's comment above says rather specifically that a considerable purpose of the article is promotion of his group's ideas. If it should be broken out into a separate article--when it becomes in widespread use by more than one group-- it should be done by someone without COI.  DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)     DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Comment"" Please note if it is to be merged, as noted above, it should be merged into the climate change adaptation page, not the mitigation page. This is actually called "Adaptation to global warming" Climatekarl (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 19:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisting comment - Article has been during the course of the AfD.  Would like to see if opinions change based on the new version of the article.  ‑Scottywong | comment _  20:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into or use this to replace the Adaption finance section of Adaptation to global warming article. With a bit more Wikification and editing, it's a valuable contribution. It makes sense with the main article providing context and background. DocTree (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly a personal essay. (Last time I checked, we weren't supposed to publish personal essays on Wiki.) Why else does it actually have Sections entitled "Introduction" and "Conclusion"? Not to mention the empty Lead before the "Introduction" Section, that is. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - entirely too promotional as the article creator admits above: "Our group is trying to create a voluntary market in vulnerability reduction credits". It is also not notable. Wikipedia is not here to help groups create the markets they want. WTucker (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Above, plus cannot help but noting the article statement " Schultz proposed in a discussion paper..." and that the defending editor is Climate. A redirect would be fine. -- →gab  24 dot  grab← 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - the source for the term "vulnerability reduction credit" is a poster - need to do better than that. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:47, 7 May 2012 (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.