Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Canada

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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Canada

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

No content. Suspect this will be contested so have not gone for speedy deletion or PROD. Brilliantine (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is some content althought not a great deal. At the very least is is a sort of dab page or topic list. The article is a notable topic and serves to fill a gap in article hierarchy:

Climate change -> Climate change in Canada -> Climate change in Alberta (along with all the other links on the page in question)

Putting a page that is a notable topic and has at least some content [up for deletion]^{(oops - had left this out)} is a waste of editors time. Surely, given the amount of interest in climate change, editors should adding info about the topic not trying to get them deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has no content of its own, it is just an index of links. That is what categories are for, not articles. It is clearly not a dab page. Just because someone might add some content to an article at some stage in the future does not mean it should sit around contentless for now. Brilliantine (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It now has one solitary sentence of content, which does not imply any kind of importance to suggest this should have stature as an independent article. Brilliantine (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some more changes. Whaddaya think? Isn't it interestin that a Climate change in Alberta article exists but there was no Climate change in Canada article at the time it was created? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is certainly notable, though the article in its current form needs work. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Alan Liefting's position. Bouchecl (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely pointless delete in the forlorn hope of avoiding thousands of articles about increasingly small subdivisions of the earth William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be some punctuation missing there. The statement is a little contradictory. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject, in particular if you views it as a an issue handled political and not just a physical phenomenon divided into articles by political borders. Tomas e (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly KEEP, climate change has a global effect, but it is caused by countries. It belongs to a series of articles about climate change by country, we need more (one for every country), so I suggest a Taskforce or WikiProject to create and enhance them. Climate change in Alberta can be merged into this article and, when convenient, be also enhanced.--Nopetro (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up a task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot. I am joining to it. Regards. --Nopetro (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Separate articles for each country, showing their policies and whatnot, is perfectly reasonable. Quite encyclopedic. No reason to delete this. Dream Focus 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. However, I see no point in automatically creating stubs for every country and these articles as potential content forks should not be created until they have sufficient independent content to stand alone, this is not an AfD issue. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (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.