Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate responsibility
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to Climate ethics. Clear consensus, reaffirmed after the rewrite, is that the article is unsuitable for inclusion. Consensus appears to be that climate responsibility should not be a red link, so redirect is the logical outcome here. If anyone thinks there are sourced, policy-compliant material to merge, it may be recovered from the page history. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Climate responsibility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article consists of one author framing a debate in his own image rather than writing a reference article. Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox. No original research. Wikipedia is not a link farm. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear you.
Quality is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Enough said. I have NO investment in this page being at Wikipedia, and you could remove it pronto, if you wish. m MaynardClark (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of its quality, this is not a proper venue for what you've written, just as a scientific journal isn't the place to try to get your review of a Broadway show published.—Largo Plazo (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect. The topic might be notable, but the entire contents of this article is a WP:NOT#ESSAY violation. Looks like an early draft written by someone in junior high. Might as well start from scratch. Further, the topic could be covered at Climate ethics, which isn't terribly long, but has similar issues. No need for two crappy articles on the same topic. Pcap ping 22:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge any useful content to Climate ethics. Redirect would be useful I believe. Not much mergeable that I can see, however. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Climate ethics; I don't see anything much worth merging. This article is, in fact, an essay that violates WP:SOAP. WP:LINKFARM isn't exactly applicable here, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I posted this nomination, the article consisted of much less text than it does now, followed by a list of links to analyses and opinion pieces, as though the article was intended to serve primarily as a portal to the readings elsewhere. Afterwards, I deleted those links, so granted that WP:LINKFARM no longer applies. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I guess, although I'm not sure it'll be a particularly useful redirect. The article as it stands is just a long OR POV essay as described above, in fact the very title "Climate responsibility" implies a point of view. I'm afraid I don't see much that would stand merging either. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Climate ethics. This is entirely an an essay. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's clearly an essay. The opening sentence even makes it clear this isn't an existing phrase, but one the author wants to introduce. Given this, it isn't even obvious that it is a natural redirect, but I won't fight the tide, if that's what people want. BTW, I'm assuming the comment at the end of the section above (Warren Baker) was intended for this discussion.--SPhilbrickT 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep It has been definitely rewritten to a point which would not have elicited the above comments.MaynardClark (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The very first paragraph is a mass of rhetorical questions, so the article starts right off with the tone of one person communicating a message to others. In the third sentence you refer to it as "this analysis", so you are aware that it is an analysis—one man's analysis—rather than a reference article. The whole article is your synthesis. It is full of your subjective evaluations as well as trivialities: "discussions ... are current and vigorous"; "talk about responsibility is complicated"; "the debate, when sophisticated"; "in that scenario, the developing world would profit incredibly"; "this could be read"; "the widely-accepted [sic] answer seems to be"; etc. Then there's the digression into vast sections on much more general topics such as basic moral questions, ethics, responsibilities, and inequities, which wouldn't belong in an article on any specific ethical debate. The bottom line is that this article remains your personal effort to frame a debate, rather than a factual reference article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Pcap ping 19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The very first paragraph is a mass of rhetorical questions, so the article starts right off with the tone of one person communicating a message to others. In the third sentence you refer to it as "this analysis", so you are aware that it is an analysis—one man's analysis—rather than a reference article. The whole article is your synthesis. It is full of your subjective evaluations as well as trivialities: "discussions ... are current and vigorous"; "talk about responsibility is complicated"; "the debate, when sophisticated"; "in that scenario, the developing world would profit incredibly"; "this could be read"; "the widely-accepted [sic] answer seems to be"; etc. Then there's the digression into vast sections on much more general topics such as basic moral questions, ethics, responsibilities, and inequities, which wouldn't belong in an article on any specific ethical debate. The bottom line is that this article remains your personal effort to frame a debate, rather than a factual reference article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (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.