Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion, but consensus that something should be done editorially to fix the overlap with related articles. It's not clear from this discussion how to best proceed, though. Further discussion may be needed.  Sandstein  19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding dangerous climate change[edit]

Avoiding dangerous climate change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article title is WP:SYNTH, as "Avoiding dangerous climate change" isn't inherently an encyclopedic subject. Duplicates existing articles, including Politics of global warming, Action on climate change, Climate change mitigation, and quite possibly others. J♯m (talk | contribs) 21:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Note: The article aforementioned as Action on climate change is actually under Climate action. Also, after this AfD was started, the Climate action article was itself nominated for deletion by Shritwod. J♯m (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC) [reply]

  • keep unless you can come up with something more convincing. The title is definitely a thing in itself, its not SYNTH, and there was definitely a conference about it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I agree entirely with Connolley. Please see WP:What SYNTH is not. On its talk page the article has previously been proposed for merger or deletion, with the conclusions being that the article stands, and with the outcome that the article has been improved as a result of the discussions. The first merger discussion concluded in January 2012. In the talk section "Title" both merger and deletion were discussed from February 2012 into July 2013. A formal merger proposal was active from May to June 2014, with the outcomes of all respondents opposed the merger, the merger flag being removed, and another person later affirming that outcome in January 2016. I ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed. Coastwise (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just "summarily remove" an AfD tag unless there's a reason to SNOW it closed, or if it's a speedy keep. J♯m (talk | contribs) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The concise, well-written, well-referenced article provides a means of accessing core information on a current hot topic. I also ask that the AfD flag be summarily removed. MaynardClark (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just "summarily remove" an AfD tag unless there's a reason to SNOW it closed, or if it's a speedy keep. J♯m (talk | contribs) 04:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - content is mostly duplicated elsewhere, and anything that isn't can be merged. The article does have some value in explaining key aspects, but this is an encyclopaedia and not a magazine. Shritwod (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC). Added: In light of the discussion below I would like to amend my vote slightly to Delete or revert back to before October 2011 and any useful content removed should be merged with other articles. Shritwod (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shritwod merely states a belief ("is mostly duplicated elsewhere") and provides no supporting evidence for that claim. In parallel to his/her delete vote he/she also suggests merger as another option, without saying with what article or for what reason. Seeing no substance to his/her vote, my vote remains: Keep. Coastwise (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant duplication between this and Climate change mitigation, for example. I believe that these subject areas are identical. I can only assume that the article has been created for SEO purposes and not encyclopaedic ones. Furthermore, requesting that the AfD flag be removed without a sufficient debate does not (in my opinion) seem to be an attempt to dodge the concerns raised by Jsharpminor. Shritwod (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume that the article has been created for SEO purposes - WTF? Why did you make up that drivel? William M. Connolley (talk)
I always enjoy a debate when the other parties have to resort to abuse. Can you explain a valid reason why there are two articles with substantially the same content? Shritwod (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the same as an article, or as a concept? Because as articles they are clearly different to my eye William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject, concept. This article was originally only about a conference and not the concept itself: original. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually support keeping the article while reforming it to be about the conference on "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change." However, I continue to object strongly to the notion that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is a thing. Climate change is a thing. Dangerous climate change is a thing to be avoided, but it is not itself an article subject. "Avoiding dangerous climate change" isn't a thing, and I would challenge anyone who says otherwise to prove it with Google search results, etc. J♯m (talk | contribs) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish to discuss some points raised since my last post.

(1) In claiming that this article and Climate change mitigation (CCM) "are identical" subject areas, User:Shritwod has once again stated a belief but provided no specifics or reasoning for his claim. The articles are distinct. The ADCC one covers the imperative of science and society to address climate change that would be dangers. The CCM article covers how to reduce those harms; however, it is uncertain whether mitigation will avoid dangerous change entirely, and arguably it will not. That leaves two other topics related to ADCC that the CCM article does not cover - the impacts of a failure to mitigate adequately (e.g. 4 Degrees and Beyond International Climate Conference and adaptation to climate change (to make the dangers less bad). Therefore, the ADCC and CCM articles are not identical on their face, and equally importantly the ADCC topic spans more than just mitigation. This also answers Mr. Magoo's first post.

(2) Mr. Magoo points to a nine-year-old version of the article, saying the article was "originally only about a conference and not the concept itself." I see no merit to his point, because the article has been expanded and improved, which is how WP functions.

(3) J#M offered a post is internally inconsistent. First, "[d]angerous climate change is a thing to be avoided," but then in the next sentence, 'Avoiding dangerous climate change' isn't a thing." He has admitted it is a "thing" but then claims that it isn't. He then challenges "anyone who says [it is a thing] to prove it with Google search results, etc." There is book with the same title, "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," by several scientists.[1] That and many articles and scientific papers with the ADCC topic (or equivalent wording) in the title can be found with a Google search. I would also point out the WP article Peace. Peace is some"thing" society values, dangerous climate change is some"thing" society wishes to avoid. Both are valid "topics" for books and encyclopedia articles, even if someone wishes to split hairs on whether they are things.

(4) Finally I would like to point out that there are 335 WP articles that link to the ADCC article (paring down from 453 entries by eliminating links from portals, lists, redirects, user:talk pages, etc.). The ADCC page has had 11,600 hits over the last 90 days. I believe this demonstrates that the ADCC article has merit. Keep. Coastwise (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schellenhuber, H.J. et al. (2006). Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge Univ. Press.
  • Comment Looking back at the edit history, it was about that conference until 30th October 2011 when it was rewritten in a way that took it off track (some might call it hijacking, but I am assuming that the edits were made in good faith). I am surprised that it wasn't reverted straight away. I would support a reversion to the topic it was about before that point, with any meaningful additions merged into one of the other near-duplicate topics. I will amend my vote accordingly Shritwod (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Shritwod, with all due respect, the only arguments for deletion that are presented on this page amount to I don't like it. The subjective reasons given have become a moving target; when one doesn't stand up to scrutiny, another is being offered. Most recently it is that the original article has been "hijacked;" however, that claim is off topic from the WP:hijack policy. To the contrary, WP:Editing policy is: "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." The arguments presented thus far on this page to support deletion are contrary to the WP policy on "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Also, the reasons given for deletion are not among those listed in the WP:Deletion policy.
Your other stated position (that the article should be reverted to its 2011 content by removing all newer content) does not meet WP's standard for problems that may justify removal.
Lastly, my call for summary dismissal of this deletion request was criticized. The reason I called for summary dismissal is that no reasoning based on established WP policy has been presented for doing the deletion, and I don't like it is insufficient grounds to support a deletion request. That dual problem still persists in this discussion. Coastwise (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with the article, primarily that the ground it currently covers is largely duplicated elsewhere, and also that the article was created to be about a particular concept in climate change but has been altered completely. I still think that the submitter's argument is entirely valid and that the article as it stands is superfluous, but it might have value if it was reverted to its original topic. Shritwod (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoiding dangerous climate change", as a title, can refer to three topics: (a) the particular 2005 conference, (b) a very specific wording that was used in multiple occasions (see "international policy), and (c) the aim of prevention and mitigation of huge adverse effects of CC in a broad sense. Up to some point in 2011 the topic was the first one, then it shifted to something between the latter two, which makes for some confusion. Whether the edits that shifted the subject were made in accordance to policy is irrelevant to the current merits of the article and its prospects; what matters is (1) which of the topics, if any, should be dealt with and (2) what is the best organization of content for this.
I think the 2005 conference (a) was notable and the linked revision was IMO a fair treatment of the subject, hence my suggestion for a new article (and redirect from the current title if nothing else gets in the way).
(b) is in my view notable enough to warrant an article, describing what is "dangerous" CC and how the sentence was used; however, the place for that is Dangerous climate change. Take the current article, rewrite the lead, scrap the last section "Some expressions of dangerous climate change" and we have a good starting point for that.
(c) is better treated in other articles listed in nominator's comment. Not only are there specific articles, but "dangerous" CC outside of a specific context (the various treaties etc.) is highly POV (who gets to decide what is "dangerous"?).
Tigraan (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, User:Tigraan, for thoughtful research and remarks that can be discussed. Concerning your latter a, b, c sequence:
(a) I agree that the 2005 conference was notable. I looking at the history, I see that it continued to have its own substantial section until Janurary 24, when the section was edited down to being little more than a stub. On January 25 that remainder was moved, and was integrated into the section "How much global temperature rise is dangerous?" References in the two sentences on the conference include links to the conference's webpage and a report on the outcome of the conference. (It appears that the report link is incorrect and should be the one on the Outcomes page accessible from the first link.) I think it would be fine to have a longer description of the conference, in its own section, but the article's history shows that how much emphasis to give the conference had been controversial for some time. I think that is a matter for the editors to reconsider if the article is kept.
(b) I disagree that the topic of the article should be "dangerous CC," as opposed to the present title concerning the globally recognized imperative to avoid that. A perceived need for avoidance was the impetus for not only the forementioned 2005 conference, but also for example the IPCC's conferences of parties (COPs) leading to the Kyoto accord and the December 2015 Paris accord. Those COPs arrived at globally recognized thresholds of climate change that should be avoided to relieve danger. However, it is fitting, as is done at the end of the present article, to at least briefly describe what kinds of dangers are of concern. So I advocate keeping both the present article and its title. Changes to the title can continue to be disussed in the article's Talk page, as has already been done.
(c) The stated belief seems to be that the title or topic is POV because "who" gets to decide what is dangerous is an open question. To the contrary, as noted in the article, it was decided by consensus of the official representatives all national governments globally, at the 2015 Paris COP, that a temperature rise of 1.5 oC is dangerous and should be avoided, and is that proves impossible to hold the change to under 2 oC to avoid as much dangerous change as possible. Similarly, 2 oC had been established by most governments as the danger threshold at the earlier Kyoto COP. Global governments have stepped in to be the "who." Therefore I believe this topic is NPOV, and that it is best addressed in this article (as the discrete topic which it is). My view remains Keep Coastwise (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/proposal to move forward. Given the edit-history involves a wholesale change of the actual topic it covers (nobody has disputed that), should this article be hist-split now so that the discussion here can actually focus on each separate subject? At a minimum, the conference is a formal name, so the current sentence-case would require renaming even if the deletion discussion here were to have "revert to the conference meaning" as its consensus. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the solution here would be to restore the section concerning the 2005 conference, as it existed on December 29, 2015. With that re-inclusion the article would still be concise, so I see no need for a split. In fact, Talk page discussion was whether the conference is adequately notable to, a decade later, even be included in the article. The conference presently has a two sentence mention in the article, and reinstating the section seems a better solution than a split. If the decision in this AfD is to make a split, the present title should become the title of a disambiguation page, with links to "Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy)" and "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (2005 conference)". However, I continue to believe that the two together are best as one concise article. My view remains keep. Coastwise (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is suggesting that we should split the article as you say. "Avoiding dangerous climate change (policy)" is already covered by Climate change mitigation. This article is about the conference, and the growing consensus seems to support that conclusion.
Also, you might want to re-read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and WP:DEM. Fifty editors screaming about why the Strings McPickens article should be kept will carry less weight than one or two editors pointing out that Strings McPickens is fictional and not noteworthy. Stating "my view remains 'keep'" at the end of every discussion only gives the regrettable impression that you are trying only to vote and "throw your weight" behind a discussion, rather than explain why you believe your views are correct. J♯m (talk | contribs) 17:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Google newspapers search, linked in the "Find sources" section above, produces 9 results. The first eight are all dated either 2006 (or, in one case, 2007). Here's what they talk about:
  • A British conference on "avoiding dangerous climate change" last year ...
  • In a report published last year called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, ...
  • Last year the British govern ment sponsored a scientific symposium on avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," ...
  • ...thresholds were outlined last year in avoiding Dangerous Climate Change," a summary of tipping points for which British Prime ...
The 9th link, the lone outlier, states
  • ...pledge appeared to be by far the largest individual commitment of money, donated or invested, aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change. ...
So it seems pretty clear to me that the articles I'm finding are all about the conference, and the paper it produced. J♯m (talk | contribs) 17:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the research, but think it is too limited. There are equivalent phrases that need to be searched (as suggested in the article's introduction), such as "preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference," "preventing dangerous climate change," such phrases and the one you used with the "-ing" dropped, and perhaps other phrases as well that express the topic. Also, I believe that a news search is too narrow, regarding what information sources may lead people to search for such terms and find this article. Searches for "all" sources on google.com and on scholar.google.com lead to a plethora of contemporary content that mentions the topic (often with the precise term in the title) that the article is about. This is what an encylopedia (and this article) are for. It is also significant that such phrases regarding the topic appear many places in WP. Coastwise (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I did add a note under the nomination which is simply stating that another article which was cited as a possible duplicate is itself going the AfD process. This is just in fairness; if we had articles A, B, C, A-B-C, and First three letters of the alphabet, and independently nominated each of them for deletion as duplicates of existing articles, we shouldn't delete all of them as duplicates of articles which now no longer exist because they were all judged to be duplicates of each other. We would then be deleting our entire coverage of the subject because we had more than one article about it, which would be idiotic. J♯m (talk | contribs) 20:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft and userfy (in case this can actually be better improved) at best because the article still somewhat looks like a journal report instead of a better encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see this heading for outright deletion based on this discussion, but it seems that there are several articles in this topic area that overlap, and perhaps this discussion can be a basis for consensus on how to editorially consolidate them.  Sandstein  09:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone please restore the References section to the bottom of this page? The two above comments are below that, but I can't find a way to correct the problem. The heading for it no longer appears, and I am unable to re-add it. Coastwise (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It had been placed somewhere else specifically for no obvious reason, so I moved it so that it appears directly after the comment that uses the ref. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge duplicates subject of other articles, with title that reads like that of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. Reference to the conference/content, if notable, can go in one of the existing articles about climate change.SatansFeminist (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition I noticed the editor who originally changed it is the only one arguing against the revert here? Wikipedia isn't a dictionary... --Mr. Magoo (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert years back to the diff cited by Mr. Magoo, and possibly Rename. One of the most egregious hijackings of a mundane article for non-neutral ends I have yet seen on Wikipedia. How on earth did this article go from being a fairly neutral, concise, clear article about a conference, to a meticulously referenced advocacy essay about the desirability of "avoiding dangerous climate change" - with the conference reduced to two sentences? Either way, the conference article is better. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. Here I categorize and summarize the above comments, and for each I give my views against merger:
Responding to arguments for merger:
Admin's suggestion: It seems that there are several articles in this topic area that overlap, so consider consolidation. (Sandstein). Content can go into an existing article about climate change. (SatansFeminist). The main matter is climate change mitigation. (Mr. Magoo).
I believe if a Venn diagram were drawn of the 15 significant articles I quickly listed here, they all overlap with this one as a center. (Some of them may also have Venn relationships centering on other topics as well.) Effects of global warming, Adaptation to global warming, Reasons for concern, UNFCCC, IPCC, Climate change mitigation, IPCC First Assessment Report (AR1), AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5, Kyoto protocol, COP 15, COP 21, Politics of global warming, and likely others. That is, there is no "main matter" this fits into, it has strong relationships to many articles. I believe cross-references to this article allows a quick, concise look-up of the concept with minimal distractions (as well as being accessible through a direct search), a good encyclopedia function. Links to some of the above articles already occur within the article, and others can be added as editors of the article deem worthwhile. I don't see any downside to having this as a standalone article.
Responding to arguments for reverting the article, by deleting non-conference content:
Claim: Original article was about the 2005 conference, which is now reduced to two sentences in the article. (Mr. Magoo).
This concern can be addressed by reverting not to a 2011 version but to in version 701511859 of Janurary 24, 2016, as the basis for continuing edits. At that point the article contained 7 paragraphs about the conference, and had just been brought up-to-date regarding the December 2015 Paris COP 21 climate conference. On January 24 and 25, user User:Prokaryotes (who has since quit Wikipedia) made 32 edits to the article. Some of these changes I believe were good, but others could profit from editing due to awkward wording or other reasons. Using that version as a new edit starting point (while considering his points from his edit history) would be a good way forward regarding Mr. Magoo's claim, I think.
Claim: Confusion is caused by years of edits that broadened the topic beyond just the conference. (Mr. Magoo).
I fail to see any confusion in article, and none has been described by Mr. Magoo.
Claim: Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. (Mr. Magoo).
Under WP policy, the article qualifies as encyclopedic, and is not a dictonary-type entry because, although "both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions ... encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic ..., and the article should provide other types of information about the topic as well." (Orig. emph.). The article fully satisfies this policy.
Claim: The conference article is better. (AnotherNewAccount).
Then the task here is for editors to improve the present article so that it is better than the original conference-only article. The conference was about the larger topic, and it is reasonable and efficient to discuss both the larger topic and the conference in this one article, rather than narrowly discussing only the conference.
Responding to other off-topic arguments:
The title reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. (SatansFeminist).
I fail to see how 4 words can be considered an essay. According to WP policy on article titles: "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. ... Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title ... identifies the subject, and is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable." I believe the present title is a good choice because it meets those guidelines and other expressions for the topic that are often used (e.g. see example in article's lede) are less natural.
A fairly neutral, concise, clear article on a conference was egregiously hijacked for non-neutral ends into now a meticulously referenced advocacy essay. (AnotherNewAccount).
My response should be considered regarding the current and alternatively the Jan. 24, 2016 version 701511859 of the article. The claim has several points, so taking each in turn:
(1) The existing article is neutral in my view and if others disagree, that should be addressed by editing the article or on its Talk page. WP Neutral point of view (NPOV) includes that this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." " As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
(2) I believe the article is concise and clear in either the current or | 701511859 version, or both. Note that in the AfD discussion above, user MaynardClark agreed with this. To the extent others disagree, the solution is to edit the article.
(3) The original article and the broadened article both satisfy WP's NPOV policy. The article currently addresses the notable topic that the 2005 conference was all about, and still discusses the conference briefly. A reference links to the conference's webpage (which still exists) where the programme and links to conference presentations, etc. In the alternative, the article could be reverted to January 24 version 701511859, which devotes 7 paragraphs to the conference and is also up-to-date on the December 2015 COP 21 conference. The article is Neutral POV because the article: presents the material "fairly" (using verified references, including secondary references); does so "proportionately" (195 nations have agreed to policy on this topic, and the topic is of widespread scientific concern); and does so "as a far as possible without editorial bias." To the extent there is a disagreement on this perception, the best avenue for that is edits or additions to the article as per usual on WP.
Claim: Editor who expanded the article is the only commenter. (Mr. Magoo).
With roughly 85 people having contributed edits to the article since its inception, and 85 having done so since the article was broadened in 2011 I think among those is a lot of support for the article. Two of them supported the article above in the earlier AfD section. Perhaps the others are not on WP regularly or don't check their WatchLists often. What differences of opinion there have been over the years were resolved on the articles talk page. Here, on this AfD/Merger page, none the few who are objecting to the article have ever edited it or commented on the Talk page. This article is to by about 355 other WP articles, and as of today it has had 16,011 hits over the past 90 days. I believe support for the article and its merit are ample.
Based on the above reasons I request a Keep for the article, and for it to be further developed through edits from either its current state or from a reversion to its state on in version 701511859 on January 24, with any needed discussion to occur in the article's talk page. Coastwise (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coatwise: A procedural point here: per WP:DISCUSSAFD ("You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line"), could you refrain from posting over and over again your "keep"? Additionnally, answering to other editors are better made just below the relevant comment, rather than with such a bloated enormous comment.
On substance, I have been thoroughly unimpressed by your arguments so far:
  1. On the content organization: maybe you "don't see any downside to having this as a standalone article", but others have given their reasons on that very page. You have not proven that there needs to be a "central article" to rule them all and even if you did I fail to see how this one should be preferred to others (e.g. Climate change).
  2. On the subject of the article: multiple editors have pointed out that this article could plausibly be about the 2005 conference at the exclusion of any other topic. I for one disagree with your opinion that "it is reasonable and efficient to discuss both the larger topic and the conference in this one article": it may be more "efficient" in the meaning that there are less total words to write, but it is certainly less "efficient" in respect to content organization. I hope you would agree that merging all articles in Category:Climate change mitigation in neither "efficient" nor "reasonable". It would certainly be incorrect to leave the decision of the scope of the article to standard editorial process; it basically caused this AfD to open, and matters to the very existence of the article.
  3. On NPOV issues: you apparently fail to realize that many, including myself, feel that "avoiding dangerous climate change" is non-neutral wording for "climate change mitigation". "Dangerous" is not a neutral word (it is "value-laden", see WP:LABEL), and moreover it implies that there is "innocuous" climate change (there may be acceptable levels of CC where the damage is limited enough that the best public policy is to do nothing, but it is a threshold and you cannot selectively choose the respective levels of the "OK" and the "not OK" parts). It is irrelevant that the article itself is perfectly written: it cannot stay under that title, and if no adequate substitute title can be found, it has to go.
  4. On editors, readers, etc.: this is really what prompted me to write my own enormous answer. While Mr Magoo's point was borderline ad hominem, your answer is full of irrelevant points. There may have been 85 (or 85,000) editors on the article but that does not mean they support its existence (one could even reverse the argument: if they felt the need to edit, clearly something was wrong). Whether past problems with the articles were peacefully resolved on the talk page is irrelevant to the current problems under discussion here; past AfD discussions are relevant only insofar that the same problems were discussed and a solid consensus reached (it is better to simply re-make the same arguments than claim legal precedent). And finally, never having edited the article does not preclude an editor from commenting on this AfD, nor does it make them somehow less competent or legitimate (see WP:OWN).
Tigraan (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change&oldid=1077948758"