Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organisations topics

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 no consensus. Having spent quite some time trying to pull a consensus one way or another out of this discussion, I've had no choice but to conclude there isn't one. A "delete" argument that merely dismisses the article as listcruft without further elaboration is hard to give a great deal of weight to; and while the arguments to keep are not wholly convincing they do do a reasonable job of refuting a good proportion of the nomination statement. Finally, the revised statement by the nominator suggesting a merge seems prima facie reasonable to me; but again consensus to do so has not developed here. Overall, I think the solution here is to trim this list and see if it wouldn't be better incorporated into one of the other articles that have been mentioned here - if it is not resolved to general satisfaction, I would suggest this is renominated here in the intermediate future. ~ mazca ^talk 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental organisations topics

List of environmental organisations topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A clunky topic that does not need an article. It is essentially a repeat of List of environmental issues and the rest of the collection at Lists of environmental topics. It does not have any rational boundary and includes a wide range of topics some of which are totally irrelevant (Office Maintenance??). If the irrelevant links were removed and more specific links used it would turn out to be the same as List of environmental issues and List of conservation issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better alternative MAY be to cull the list and merge it into environmental organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply listcruft. Noir (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Link to Office maintenance removed. Any other "irrelevant links" you object to? Anarchangel (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is not the only list of articles related to the environment that the nominator is not fond of. From the talk page of List of environmental issues:

• And that must be a pain, as setting limits on 'List of environmental issues' is something you pursue so very vigorously.

  Articles listed in List of environmental organisations topics that are not listed in, I should like to call it your article, as you have made so very many edits to it:

  List of environmental issues - The first 5 out of 29 sections: 44 articles. None of these articles are in 'List of environmental issues':

  • Agriculture • Agricultural pollution • Agroforestry • Alternative crops • Animal husbandry • Aquaculture • Biodynamic farming • Biotechnology • Composting • Genetically modified foods • Organic farming •Permaculture • Sustainable agriculture • Air quality • Asthma • Criteria pollutants • Ground-Level Ozone • Industrial pollution • Pollution prevention • Ozone layer • Urban heat island effect • Ecosystems • • Coastal ecosystems • Coral reefs • Deserts • Forests • Grasslands • Mountains • Oceans • Rainforests • Rivers • Lakes • Streams • • Wetlands • Alternative fuels • Biomass • Energy efficiency • Fuel cells • Geothermal energy • Hydroelectric energy • Nuclear energy • Solar energy • Wind energy •

  I'm not dead set on 'Grasslands', say, but there's the issue of the depleting watershed in the Plains of North America... all the articles that I didn't delete from 'List of environmental topics' (about seven to ten, and who knows, maybe I am mistaken in deleting those) that seem to those uneducated in matters green to be irrelevant, all have some similar reason for them, and can be replaced with sections that deal with that in those articles, other articles, or redlinks to articles that should be written about their respective issues (which is another good thing about a list like this).

  The total number of articles in the first 5 out of 29 sections in 'List of environmental organisations topics' is 56. Compare that with the TOTAL number of articles listed in 'List of environmental issues'; a little over 100. Given the same number of articles per section, that's round about 250 articles in '...topics', or two and a half times as many.

  If all the articles that were not in 'List of environmental issues', were removed from the first 5 of 29 sections, it would have 78.5% fewer articles listed. -edit- 43 articles out of 56 after the 'pest and weed' thing was removed makes 76.78% -edit-

  250 x 78.5%, the derived percentage of articles not in "...issues", equals 196.25, or around 200 articles that are not listed if this article is deleted. So how many of them do you think need to be removed, exactly? Cause, you know, we could stand to lose half, say, and still have an article with a list of 100. Jealous, a lot? Or is it the other thing? -edit- 76% as above makes 192 -edit-

  I can say with some certainty that the assertion: "It is essentially a repeat of List of environmental issues" has been utterly and completely refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  -edit- Rmv some 'pest and weed' article name that I had already replaced, showed the altered the numbers above accordingly Anarchangel (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Anarchangel:

1. I don't own any articles.
2. Number of my edits to a particular article is not relevant to a deletion discussion
3. List of environmental issues is an overview article which should be kept short to be more useable
4. List of environmental issues is on my watchlist so I carry out frequent edits on it
5. number of links and a comparicon of percentages to other articles is not relevant. Other factors suuch as usability, encycopaedic value, ability to set a boundary on content etc are more important.
6. This article could be expanded to include all the topics in Lists of environmental topics for completeness and then it would be redundant. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 disproves point 1. Where on WP is the distinction of an 'overview article'? Anarchangel (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To your last, indeed it could, and then it would. But if 'there can be only one', why not the more complete one? And if this had occurred to you previously, or if you were even undertaking such an enterprise as of 11 Aug, perhaps the AfD rationale would have been more clearcut, shall we say.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Environmental organization after culling list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (added my sig rather belatedly after forgetting to do so)[reply]
• Keep per own comment above. I note Pavel is indulging in WP:VAGUEWAVE.

It seems to me slightly inappropriate, though not unacceptable, for a nominator to vote in their own AfD However, it is less acceptable for the nominator for deletion to vote for merge, and even less so for the nominator to not sign their vote. Furthermore, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and Environmental organization is only one part. A very unsuitable title to merge. Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures now corrected - to your satisfaction I hope. Whether an article should merged is only based in a small way on an article title. The content and its suitability as a standalone encyclopedia article are of far greater importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 12 August 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.