Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rwbest/World primary energy production

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Rwbest/World primary energy production


Original research and synthesis by editor. Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another place to discuss World primary energy production ! It's becoming quite complicated. See the Help desk.
 * Keep: Although the referencing is poor and definitely does not meet standards, it is a user page which can be developed properly through proper sourcing. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * as a user draft I dont see any current deletion rationale, but as a potential article, its got a LONG way to go. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article. The title did NOT exist yet. The purpose is that it, with World final energy consumption, gives short and clear information about where and how in the world most energy is produced and where it is consumed.

Then my article was speedily deleted by Beowulf - it would duplicate Energy development. It does not. Energy development does not conveniently list countries producing most of primary energy, divided into fossil, nuclear and renewable. Speedy deletion was not justified. I asked to reinstall, but Beowulf did not and added my title World primary energy production to Energy development, blocking the possibility of a separate article with my title.

I feel that this is an abnormal situation, not in the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia! Please help to restore a normal situation.

Rwbest (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. A long way off from being a viable article, but it is being worked on. This should not be nominated (at this time). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:07, 5 October 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.