Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide energy supply (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion about the article, such as concerns about original research and sourcing can continue on the talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply

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

As the original author plain refuses to add the detailed sourcing as requested by two other editors (including me), it is clear that this article is WP:OR. See discussions on User talk:Rwbest (largely removed) and Talk:Worldwide energy supply. By and large, every excuse not to give the sources is used. The Banner talk 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is adequately sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a technical article. The reader is supposed to be familiar with concepts power and energy, units watt and watthour, prefix giga, tera. A technical minded reader will not have problems to read the tables and to verify the data with the given sources. It won't help to add separate sources for every country as The Banner wants to see. I'm afraid that even then he does not understand. It would clutter the reference list. "this article is WP:OR" is nonsense. Rwbest (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And again a refusal to give proper sources as requested many times before by multiple editors. Do-it-yourself-sources (i.e. here is a report, try to find the details yourself) only strengthen the suspicion that the author is creating is own version of the truth. The Banner talk 01:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article sources and a WP:BEFORE style search shows multiple in depth reliable sources for this topic, e.g, [1], [2]. This topic seems solidly notable and just the sort of topic we should cover in an encyclopedia.Although it is clear that there is some sort of long-running editorial dispute, we don't delete articles because of contented sources; rather we build consensus and delete any original research. A notable topic with no insurmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, that is exactly why I nominated the article: original research. The Banner talk 02:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. Meets the GNG. Also, to nom, if one source has information about 20 things in a table, it is not necessary to use 20 inline citations. A single reference, or even a general reference, is sufficient, and "proper" support for the entire table. The important part is the existence and quality of the source. The Steve 07:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing could be made clearer, but that is not an excuse to delete the entire (useful) article. The Proffesor (talk) 22:07, 18 November 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.