Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Careers in climate change

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 delete. As noted by several editors in the discussion, the core of this discussion was not "is it notable", but instead "is it encyclopedic", and the consensus was, it is not. I would be happy to userfy if anyone wants to merge the info into Green jobs using the sources linked here. —Darkwind (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Careers in climate change

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

No sign of notability, and looks like a "Climatologists are doing it for the cushy jobs" type reason for this article existing, alternatively it may be an article created to advertise a particular website linked in the article. Implausible redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some references quite easily.[1][2][3][4][5][6] It's still a stub but there is room for expansion. (I also don't think this is now pushing any POV.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a careers advice website or a directory for some, which those links above seem to support. I don't see how the term is notable as a standalone article - perhaps as a list but that might lead to a bunch of "Careers in..." pages, which goes back to my original argument. Funny ^Pika! 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Still has POV pushing in the article (basically, the insinuation that people only study climate change for the money.... and there's a strong risk of this article being used as a coatrack for that POV). I've looked through the sources, and they talk about individual careers related to climate change, but not careers in climate change as a whole, thus tying them together presents a strong risk of WP:SYN. I also note that we don't have any comparable articles on "Carreers in X." WP:OSE suggests that shouldn't matter... but it seems strange to have an entire category of article not exist. Similar articles seem to have found their way to the deletion bin of history: [7] [8] [9] [10]. The main relevant policy cited in most of the previous debates is WP:NOTHOWTO. While Colapeninsula's sources make this a better case for retention than the previous cases, I feel the subject matter is not capable of breaking free from WP:NOT. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Colapeninsula's sources establish notability. There are also several books about green or environmental careers which cover the topic in a more general way. Our editing policy is to develop this material, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That editing policy has no connection to whether we should delete articles or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The policy is explicitly referenced in WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Warden (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an incorrect application of policy. If a topic isn't notability we don't keep it anyway. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also something where not everyone interprets policy in the same way. For an alternate interpretation, readily applicable in this case, see WP:TNT. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, I agree that Cola's sources are a fair argument that the article passes the GNG. Could you explain how it can avoid violating WP:NOTGUIDE. For everyone's info, In my search for precedent, I also came across our article on Green jobs, which is fairly well-written and seems to avoid the problems of the current article. The topic of "careers in climate change" may well be notable in some form, but this article as written I don't feel is an appropriate form (or perhaps even title). Heck, the article as written is contradictory... start of with "climate change scientists are...." but then talks about non-scientist roles like consultants. All of these things are potentially fixable, but the current article has minimal value to an encyclopedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE is guidance about our style. It is telling how to write about a topic, not whether we should write about it. An encyclopedia, by definition, covers all types of knowledge. Warden (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that interpretation. Are you saying wikipedia should have an article called How to change oil? Many reliable sources exist explicitly referring to the title. But I would argue the topic is inherently not encyclopedic and hence if someone made such an article it should be deleted. In that case, there's already Motor oil#Maintenance. There are numerous areas where jobs involving climate change could be referenced in an encyclopedic fashion, but this page and format isn't it. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use new sources to improve Green jobs No one has made a cogent argument why we should emphasize this particular group of Green jobs with its own detail article. Is there a similar article on Careers in environmental remediation, or Jobs in food security as a function of geopolitics or Positions in biodiversity preservation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable as an independent topic, also a sign of WP:RECENTISM. Compare Carreers in cell phone sales, Careers in flat screen TV manufacturing, and even Careers in Web Design. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These straw men are of little value because the most common keyword used on Wikipedia for this seems to be occupation, e.g. List of scientific occupations, Cleaning and maintenance occupations, List of healthcare occupations, &c. Warden (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something but those are essentially lists of occupations, not articles about that occupation. This does seem to be a very recent topic and while those articles may be straw men, I don't see how pointing out that lists of occupations existing on Wikipedia means anything to this discussion. This isn't a list of climate change occupations. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Delete and merge any useful information into Green jobs. This article seems to be pushing a POV about the increasing number of "green collar jobs" in the world while not actually describing "Careers in climate change" at all, outside of the occupation's growth. That's not a reason for deletion but even is the subject of "Careers in climate change", WP seems to already have an article about this topic at Green jobs. The small amount of POV information here isn't showing me that an independent article is warranted and that information can be easily merged into Green jobs if it brings new value to that article. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NewsAndEventsGuy has it right. What makes this particular topic worth its own article? I'm not seeing it, certainly not from the current version of the article. Prioryman (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term or concept of "careers in climate change" could be notable for perhaps a category (perhaps), but not an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect This is one of those cases where those who argue "there are sources discussing it and therefore there must be an article" seem to be ignoring that the reader comes first. If what we can say about "Careers in climate change" is essentially that there are "careers in climate change", it doesn't need to be in a standalone article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:30, 15 April 2013 (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.