Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed geoengineering schemes (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. Clear consensus that overlap between a category and a list is insufficient reason to delete the list. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed geoengineering schemes[edit]

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

The page is a list that is largely redundant with both Category:Geoengineering and List_of_geoengineering_topics. It adds little or no further information. By presenting this information as a list, it implies that these various proposals are roughly equivalent. In fact, the proposals vary so widely in their means, possible results, and current understanding of costs, feasibility, and risks that such a presentation is arguably misleading. Along these lines, it is notable that almost nothing has been added in the four years since the page was previously proposed for deletion, although the evidence and discussion of various geoengineering proposals has moved forward and further differentiated the proposed means. The list also obscures the fact that many of these proposals may or may not be geoengineering depending on one's definition thereof. Such context is provided by the primary pages such as Climate_engineering , Solar_radiation_management , and Carbon_dioxide_removal. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 08:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisting. Jesse L Reynolds (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. @Jesse L Reynolds: for future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 20:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is normal (more or less inevitable) for a list to overlap with a category, but as the list is cited and the category isn't, the list certainly has added value (even ignoring the fact that few readers browse categories). On the supposed overlap with List of geoengineering topics, that list is uncited, and names only 16 types of scheme. Given the clear notability of the topic and the fact that the list is properly cited, I should have thought it an obvious keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Climate_engineering#Proposed_strategies links to here, too much information to fit in that article. And the rules are that you never delete a list just because you prefer categories, they can both exist. Dream Focus 20:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough difference between the subject matter of the two lists to justify keeping both. Overlap between cat and list fine per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Lists_and_categories. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 7 January 2017 (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.