Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed scenarios and technologies for de-carbonizing Europe

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 move to draft space. Will move to Draft:List of proposed scenarios and technologies for de-carbonizing Europe. Any title change that's decided on can be implemented if this is improved and judged fit for article space. Deor (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed scenarios and technologies for de-carbonizing Europe[edit]

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

Poorly written, unreferenced, original research with linkfarms. It is more confusing than helpful, and not a good basis to address the topic, therefore suggest WP:TNT is the best way forward. ELEKHH^T 00:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiversity. (I have changed my opinion to "userfy", see below; I didn't think to strike out my original !vote until after the article was relisted.) I believe there is value in this material, but not here. This is basically an essay or synthesis, and as such prohibited here, as well as being almost impossible to reference properly. But Wikiversity allows for this kind of original research. I have restored the material deleted by NewsAndEventsGuy so that we can look at the article as the author intended it. I do think the linkfarm at "See also" and the half-dozen templates should be removed. I also think "List of" should be removed from the title, since it is not in list format; it should be called "Proposed scenarios and technologies for decarbonizing Europe". (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article, but I have changed my mind; I think it should not be deleted but rather transferred to a sister project where it would be accepted.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN: per WP:EDITATAFD please self revert your undoing of my constructive changes. You can demonstrate Engineman's most recent work by providing this link. (Later) I removed some text from my own prior remark in favor of my current opinion NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. I prefer to evaluate articles the way they are, not to expect people to discuss a version that has had half or more of the content removed - including Engineman's attempts to "fix the defects" by adding references. I did not find your blanking of most of the sections to be a "constructive change". On my the article's talk page you said that by restoring this information I take responsibility for it. Fine; I take responsibility for it. Now let's discuss the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if anyone wants to see NewsAndEventsGuy's preferred version of the article, it is here: [1]. Note that in the time since I restored the original information, Engineman has been toiling mightily to reference the article and bring it into encyclopedic shape. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whatever happens, this can't remain in mainspace, as it is so incomplete as to be useless in the current form. but not so useless as to wreck it. Closing admin, please userfy or transwiki. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to know how this is different from the other articles I mentioned; thus far nothing specifically about Europe has been included. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Move to draft space. If draft space is suitable for anything, it's suitable for incomplete work of this sort. We do not keep or delete articles based on the username of the editor who wrote them--the suggestion is utterly contrary to the basic principle of "anyone can edit" . And, despite what Melanie (talk · contribs) says, it is not just permissible but encouraged in deletion policy to improve an article during a discussion. One of the ways of doing so is often to remove material--I've probably removed promotional and poorly-thought-out material hundreds of times during AFDs in the effort to have them good enough to keep, as have a great many other editors. Of course, it is sometimes a question which version is preferable--I have also seen editors remove the essential parts of an article in order to get it unfairly deleted. I don;t know what is best done with this one--perhaps two articles are needed: a general article, and a list which would act as a guide to our many other articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace; This article title says its listing. The lead says it is a list. It is is not formatted like a list and doesn't comply with MOS regarding lists. Instead, it is an article that is comparing and analyzing. It is clearly in draft form. At the article talk page the article creator has also requested a name-change. It's quite clear that this is a draft work that is still in progress and gelling in the instigator's mind. That's what user space drafts are for. In addition, the ed still hasn't explained how this articles technology-comparison attempts to present anything really new that was not attempted by one or more of

Low-carbon economy

Climate change mitigation

Renewable energy

Renewable energy commercialization

et cetera?

The word "Europe" appears here and there, but more by happy coincidence of available examples. It isn't clear why this is about Europe's efforts. Move to user space draft, and give the hardworking good faith editor time to develop the ideas for WP:REVIEW review. BUT advise the ed to seriously consider adding comparative stuff to existing articles reviewing these technologies. If he wants to do something about Europe, then make it about Europe. This is just a technology overiew, one of many preexisting ones. Improve those, don't make another. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Energy policy of the European Union which covers similar ground and is more developed. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: I thought and still think there is value in this work. Engineman has been working hard on it, with a lot of input from NewsAndEventsGuy, and it is vastly improved from when it was nominated. However, it is still incomplete, still contains a lot or original research, and the title and format (list or article?) are in dispute, as is the question of whether it is specifically about Europe or not. In other words it is not ready for mainspace. I agree with the others here that the best course right now would be to move it to userspace, where it can be expanded at leisure and these issues can be worked out. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by principle article author

People, only just seen this thanks for pointing me to it News and Events Guy.

i am quite happy to remove the List from the title, but was advised earlier not to change the title for the time being. I am also happy for it to be either European or worldwide because the same points apply.

And it is not true that the other articles deal with the subject in this way that I am treating, they are very poor and say things like " more storage will be needed ", or pv could be a solution ( not in those exact words) but as the article in question shows, the section on storage shows this is not true and quite misleading although it is often touted as a fact. Similarly it often claimed that better insulation will be a component of the low carbon society and will reduce carbon to the necessary low levels, but as I will show, detailed studies show that merely insulating legacy buildings will not work. So what is needed is an article which lists all the components that are touted as being suitable for a low carbon Europe / world, and listing with evidence whether or not the technology claims are in fact true, from a numerical and engineering view point, not just vague statements. This article when I have finished it will do just that.Engineman (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All, the other articles, all say things in effect " we could have a bit of this, a bit of that (pv, wind, nuclear etc) without any numerical discussion of if it would actually work in the big picture. As the article shows electricity storage which is widely touted simply is not a solution to low carbon economy and nor is insulation, to pick two, but none of the existing article show this.

If it were merged with other article it will dilute and confuse the reader.

I dont see any original research its all based on referenced facts.

And I am happy for the title to be changed to take out list and make it europe specific or global but the same facts witll apply.

And finally for now, the article will only be about power and heat, as these two are intimately related, although this is another point not generally recognized in the other articles.

The other articles are good general summaries but they are not good enough, and cannot be made so since the serve a different general approach. ps agreed it needs a lot more work but at least I might get some help if it is in the main section. Engineman (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Engineman:, (A) I just posted an offer of help at your user talk; and (B) you've rejected adding your material to other relevant articles because you don't agree with their present content. That's not a reason to create yet another article. In fact, that remark makes it seem plain you're (in good faith) working on an impermissible WP:POVFORK. Don't just run off and do your own competing thing. Fix the problems in the existing things! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get paid to give feedback to college students about their writing for six hours every week, and I learn something by editing Category:Energy law articles. I don't mean to be rude, but what makes this article different from the others is the poor writing and editing. To any objective reader, it's a draft, not an encyclopedia article. Sorry for my bluntness, but you asked. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearian, thank you for your feed back. It is acknowledged and understood that this is a draft article. My approach is to get some hard references in, and then to knock it into shape. Feel free to help.

Dear Others, the other articles are IMHOP far to general, and it will not work putting the points I am making in this article in amongst all the other details of the techns. This article only covers the limitations and synergies none of which the other articles deal with.

Requested new title : Practical maximum Carbon Reduction Technologies - Limitations, Synergies and Integration for the heating, cooling and power sectors

This article summarizes key features which make unrealistic some of the widely promoted technologies that could play a significant role in a global low-carbon economy to help avoid further global warming, why some technologies are mutually exclusive, and why some technologies demand other matching technologies to be effective. "Significant role" means that a very large proportion of all energy, not just electricity, heating and cooling, is assumed to come from or be associated with the technology. This article deals only with heating, cooling and power generation since because these key sectors uniquely strongly interact and therefore low carbon policy and technologies must in some views be dealt with in an integrated manner.Engineman (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2014 (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.