Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate conflict

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. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate conflict

WP:Neologism states "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing". I believe that the Climate conflict article should be deleted, because I have not been able to find a reliable source covering specifically the term "Climate conflict". Thank you for reading, and thank you in advance to anyone who contributes in a discussion regarding my nomination. Terrakyte (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Terrakyte (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks cited sources altogether. Unless heavily improved, this article should be deleted per the nominators reasons. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 22:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it really does feel like original research. I don't doubt that the concept could be real, but it ought to be analysed elsewhere (not on wikipedia). - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. TNP (formerly Jonathan) 00:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a notable concern - e.g. I remember an article in the Economist about the increasing danger of wars over water in arid zones such as the Middle East. The article should be improved rather than deleted, per WP:DELETE. Google appears to have plenty of hits for 'war conflict "climate change"', of which the first 2 are PNAS (possibly the article already cited, and War has historic links to global climate change (New Scientist). I don't know whether "Climate conflict" is the most common short term for the type of scenario the article describes. If WP:RS found during improvements indicate that some other label is more common, then rename+redirect. The comment "lacks cited sources altogether" is an exaggeration, although I notice that one of the cited URLs is so badly formatted that my browser can't find it. --Philcha (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (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.