Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries

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 technically delete, but the article has since been rewritten, moved, stubbed and merged, not necessarily in that order. Deleting it now would be pointless, so I'm just closing this as a delete of the original essay for WP:CSD#G4 purposes, and allow continued editing (or merging, or whatever) of the rewritten content. Sandstein (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries

Delete as an essay that's a textbook case of synthesis and original research. The article starts by forking from renewable energy, speculates on how this technology could be used in the third world, then looks at the potential pro's and con's. (FYI, this brought to you by the same university class). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (E/C) Delete as nom, for the reasons listed. PS: thanks 10lbhammer Bfigura ^(talk) 03:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Enigma ^message 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research and original synthesis. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Geothermal power, not deleted. The article already had a margeto tag on it before the AfD was initiated. --Eastmain (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like over a dozen others, this is another inappropriate student project. The professor continues to work against our policies, by actively promoting the inclusion of OR and SYNTH in our articles. Perhaps there's a MarshallWiki that they can abuse. ThuranX (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per mergeto ukexpat (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe this guy will get his university an IP block and an email. We can hope. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the tag that previously existed on the article. Just because it is part of that class doesn't mean there aren't things in it that may help the other article. Shouldn't be allowed to stand as an independant article though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if there's anything worthwhile in the article add it to geothermal power. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should not delete articles because they are imperfect or because we do not like the author. There are abundant sources for this and in skimming these I found a book on the subject which I have cited. This demonstrates that this is a substantial topic worthy of an article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that we shouldn't delete because of the author. (After all, the class has produced several good articles). However, we generally don't keep articles that are entirely synthesis and original research. (And while geothermal energy in the third word might be okay, the current title is rather POV). --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per previous comments. Czolgolz (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is, this article largely replicates (rather badly) some of the material in Geothermal power. The two sections which actually deal with the topic are unreferenced personal opinion type stuff. At the moment there's nothing useful to merge. Plus, the current title "How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries", is inherently POV and non-encyclopedic. Having said all that, perhaps it could be re-titled Geothermal power in the developing world, and marked as a stub with appropriate clean-up banners. With the right title and collaboration from other editors, it has the potential be a substantial topic congruent to similar articles, e.g. Geothermal power in Iceland, Geothermal energy in the United States. I agree with Colonel Warden, we shouldn't delete articles because they are imperfect or apply different standards of deletion simply because in this case, people are (rightly) annoyed by the ill-conceived GlobalEcon project. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research --Dalgspleh (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "How" that starts the title is rather a giveaway to the fact that this is an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please recreate. The current article does not meet inclusion standards as noted above; however, it could easily be a notable topic per Colonel Warden. I encourage someone to create a viable article at the location suggested by Bfigura. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article was moved to a better title (Geothermal energy in developing countries‎). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything mergable already exists in geothermal. --Lemmey talk 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Geothermal power already contains the key facts without the POV opinion, so merging does not make any sense here. --DAJF (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we seem to be getting more and more essays.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another essay.-- danntm ^T _C 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthetic essay, not an encyclopedia article. I would say merge, but I don't think there's anything to merge from it. Aleta ^Sing 03:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research and a POV statement. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another Globalecon essay. I don't think the professor grasps this: Wikipedia is not your free web host Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and Wikipedia is not your free web host CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under new title. Is no longer inherantly POV and can become a fairly good article. If not that, merge, but it does have references, just not inline. Editor of the wiki^{review my edits here!} 10:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect (already done) (DO NOT DELETE TO PRESERVE GFDL, I HAVE MERGED A FEW SENTENCES.) I was bold and found the few sentences that contained facts and put them all into Geothermal power#Africa, where they are helpful. The references provided don't seem to have this information (but it's likely verifiable), so they don't have to be merged. Mangostar (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic here. First, why is a separate stab article, called Geothermal power in Africa, needed when there already exists a good article called Geothermal power? Isn't that a bit of content forking? If there are a few new references in Geothermal power in Africa, why can't they be just added to Geothermal power? Second, even if Geothermal power in Africa is kept as a separate article, why should there be a redirect to it called How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries (if that is what you are proposing)? The latter is a terrible title for a WP article. Nsk92 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple sentences (the only worthwhile sentences in the article) to Geothermal power. (I had first renamed this one to be about Africa, because that's all it covered.) To keep the history for the GFDL, we need to either keep a redirect or someone should make a dummy edit indicating where those few sentences in Geothermal power came from (that is, who wrote them). I think there should perhaps be a redir from Geothermal power in Africa to Geothermal power, but agree that How Geothermal Energy Can Benefit Developing Countries is kind of a silly thing to keep around (except for legal/GFDL reasons). Mangostar (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that all the moves and redirects that happened here are making me dizzy. Since you have added the relevant new info to Geothermal power, I think it is better to simply delete all the remaining move/redirect mess which is already quite confusing. Nsk92 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the new name. usually one wouldn't drastically redirect while at an afd, but I think it made sense in this case to show how the article could be started on the way to rescue. Previous comments here should be reconsidered. DGG (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geothermal power. The current stub has little that hasn't already been put into that article, and there's no need to have a separate stub for that. Aleta ^Sing 13:40, 7 May 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.