Talk:Energy in the European Union

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Energy policy of the European Union
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Energy policy of the European Union

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An article on electricity production and usage in the European Union.

Edit reverse about general notability and reliable sources[edit]

@Onel5969: A editor, not accepting the stub status of a Energy in the European Union article, reversed for a second time the change from a redirect (to a page about energy policy) to a general page about energy in the proposed subject. And that instead of starting a talk about my hint as WP:STUB (I find disappointing the second reversal, without trying first to reach a consensus). Counter arguments where general notability and reliable sources. First, I don't get that Energy in the European Union needs to question about general notability. The topic is surely notable. Second, I ask the editor to indicate what, of the stub content, is not reliably sourced. The information is old, but non unreliable.
General notability refers only to news or other specific content which is not automatically relevant to a encyclopedia. But a page about Energy use in one of the largest World supranational political Union is surely notable. But what happens if there is not enough encyclopedic coverage of a subject like that ? We have WP:STUB. It is a starting proposal to expand to a article status, that is an article that, although providing some useful information, lacks the breadth of coverage expected from an encyclopedia, but is capable of expansion.
Beside, the content was stripped from the page Energy in Europe, where it was misplaced because the European Union is not Europe (Belarus, Norway, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Ukraine, for example, are all in Europe, but not part of the European Union). --Robertiki (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, WP:GNG's opening sentence is "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Usefulness is not a standard for inclusion on WP. Directories might be useful, but there is WP:NOTDIRECTORY, for instance. This is not a question of notability, but a question of not providing enough in-depth sourcing from independent references to show it passes WP:GNG, and as per WP:SOURCE. Stubs can have a single source, as long as that source shows that it meets notability, a perfect example of that is a stub about a village in India, whose only source is to the Indian census. In addition, this appears to be a WP:FORK of the target article, which also includes info on energy consumption. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, for example, the source indicated is that of the European Union statistical agency, like your example about India. But anyway the article needs to expand. What is the minimum to satisfy your requirements ? I don't have much time now, but could add something. --Robertiki (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Polyamorph: Would you explain what do you intend for no need for a separate article ? --Robertiki (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what more explanation is needed, the redirect target is already a substantial article covering this very subject. Per WP:CFORK this is redundant. Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onestly, have you read the "target" ? Could you point me to the production data ? Have you read any of the "Energy in nation_xyz" to compare to a "policy" article ? And more, how do know the "Energy" article would cover the same subject as the "Policy" article ? --Robertiki (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]