Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate and energy

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 keep. Missvain (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and energy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random collection of "see also" links that happen to include the words "climate" and "energy". This is not an article and we have plenty of articles on climate change, Climate change mitigation, and greenhouse gases on the topic. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename I think there's something here. What's provided here is basically "policy relating to the climate-energy nexus", equivalent to the concept of water-energy nexus (i.e. the interaction of energy generation and water management) - and indeed three of the references given here use the term "climate-energy nexus" in the title. The list of links is not random in that regard, but topical: agencies and programmes that specialize in this area. Lacking in text, but this is not an unreasonable start for an article on the topic. I'd suggest renaming however, maybe to climate-energy nexus or climate and energy policy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination's complaint that this is "random" is absurd. People can and do write entire books about this broad topic. If more prose is wanted then this is done by writing it, not by deleting what we already have. The current, tentative approach to the topic is explicitly commended by policy: "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing." Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what exactly "we already have", seeing that we do already have several other better developed and connected articles that already cover energy policy and energy's impact on climate and deserve our attention more than a new page with no useful content. They are indeed arbitrary, being unrelated agencies, journals, laws, and organizations which have just these two words in their name in common, though there are many other related groups with the same focus areas without the same keywords. Reywas92^Talk 02:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above statements, plus I do not see a real deletion rationale. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understood from the first word, 'Random', that the rationale was WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that would make sense but I don't see how it fits that rationale. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concede that the title may be a little laconic and could also be read as "climate change and energy (over)use" the fact remains undisputed that there is a strong correlation and causal relationship between these and the other mentioned factors. Some authors also include various other types of resources like water into a visualization of the nexus. Not sure whether it would make sense to merge all in any way related articles into a single humongous one. It is quite clear that many governments have realized the particularly strong relationship between the two particular factors and set up initiatives and institutions to study their cross-influence (see list in article). What is good enough on this level should certainly be good enough for WP. -- Kku (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it needs more substantive content and citations, but there's nothing wrong that can't be fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article is weak as it stands, the topic is essential to understand the predictions made in climate science and the mitigations proposed. The Representative Concentration Pathway article gives a better picture of what this article should be about, although that article cannot serve as the main article for the topic as it is tied to the current IPCC framework. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Obviously running against consensus here, but: this article is so short and so vague that it is impossible to tell what it is about. A magnet for WP:OR, if you ask me. Obviously the climate and energy are notable topics, but I don't know what "climate and energy" is that wouldn't be covered by, say, Politics of climate change. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What this article should be and the politics article is I see as chalk and cheese: that is about the socio-politics, while this article is about two things that concern climate science: first prediction, how do we talk about future energy use scenarios and their climate impact and second mitigation, how would current and future changes in energy use affect what scenarios we might find ourselves in and which are best in effect-for-pain terms. I'm not strongly opposed to TNT, though: I don't see much of value in what we have at present. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to draft space Spudlace (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2020 (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.