Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associations of environment journalists

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. Secret ^account 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Associations of environment journalists

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

Pure list cruft. Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete the external links, and in time will add Wikipedia pages for the various national networks, but the page itself is valid Shandartowers (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any evidence that any of these are notable. It therefore fails WP:L. If someone can prove that multiple associations of environment journalists are notable, I will of course reconsider. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notable" is highly subjective and depends a lot on geography. In many of the countries where these associations have formed, there are serious environmental problems that threaten people lives and serious corruption that makes environmental journalism itself a deadly profession. For journalists in such settings the very existence of such a network can be transformative Shandartowers (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure listcruft. And Shandartowers in the comment just above seems to mix up notability in the WP sense with worthy, which are two very different things. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Put it this way - if Environmental journalism had a section on (notable!) associations in the field, forking that off into its own article (if the length merited it) would be perfectly acceptable. The trick here is that such associations are not actually mentioned as such at the Environmental journalism article - but that can be fixed easily with copyediting. This can be kept on that basis - failing that, this should be trimmed and merged over to Environmental journalism. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section in Environmental journalism: The nominated article was never a proper WP:Spinoff of "Environmental journalism" and the talk pages of both articles show no activity. Environmental journalism is one of the areas/beats that have been marked for development by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Journalism. While Environmental journalism may be list heavy at this point to justify a spinoff, the article itself is not significantly developed enough, and the reader who would probably want this information would look under the main article. This makes it all the more important for the articles to be merged until some future point when a spinoff is necessary. I'm basically in agreement with what User:Ultraexactzz (see above) is saying on this but on a different point on the timeline of development! As per User:Shandartowers, I agree and that is why a section in the main article in necessary. Both users who advocate for delete make a good point that this is too early for a standalone list and the nominated article/list does not explicitly state notability.Crtew (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested for exactly the reasons given by Crtew. Not really appropriate for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.—The present version of the article mentions some associations of environmental journalists, especially associations in Africa, but they are shown as red links, because they have no corresponding articles. If those associations had Wikipedia articles, then this article would have a greater claim to notability.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:50, 18 August 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.