Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water and the environment
- 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. Like the similar AFD of Agriculture and the Environment, this is the rare case where notability is not the main argument in favor of deletion. It has been demonstrated that the subject is already covered in numerous other articles and that those articles do a much better, more thorough job of covering the topic. It is possible this could still be useful as a redirect, maybe to an as-yet-nonexistent list of all articles that fall under this general subject, but the current version is a poorly written content fork. While poor writing in and of itself is almost never a reason to delete, it is in the case of a content fork as nothing of value is lost. Again, no prejudice against recreation in another form that directs readers to the content we already have on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Water and the environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale even though prod was 2 hours past the 7-day limit. Article is four sentences long, almost tautological and ridiculously incomplete. I think the title is far too vague to be of any use, not to mention that it just parrots stuff already at marine pollution, water pollution and other similar articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
Agree with everything here, pointless article.After reading Alan's comment I changed my mind. Bluefist talk 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. It is a very notable topic. The article needs expanding not deleting. Contrary to what the nominator asserts the article topic is clearly defined - namely the intersection of water and the environment. A similar AfD by the nominator is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and Agriculture and the environment is a content fork just like this one, and looks like it is going to be deleted. What's your point? SnottyWong talk 16:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-The article is on a very important topic.It can be a good wiki article if expanded.--Poet009 (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong prattle 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article currently has just about zero content, aside from four blazingly obvious sentences and various links to other articles. If this article were to be expanded, it would be a content fork of all the articles it currently links to. There is nothing that could be said in this article that isn't already discussed at length in Water, Water pollution, Marine pollution, Water conservation, Peak water, and a myriad of other articles discussing various facets of this topic. Note to closing admin: I believe my !vote is the first such one that doesn't fall under WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT. SnottyWong prattle 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unsourced and largely contentless WP:CFORK of Water (particularly Water#Effects on human civilization) and subsidiary articles (particularly Water pollution). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable topic with ample coverage. Click on the Google news archive or Google book search at the top of the AFD. Thousands of results for each. Some of them are surely valid. And it isn't just about water pollution either. Dream Focus 02:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The boilerplate WP:GHITS argument from Dream Focus is even less compelling than usual for this article. There's no doubt that if you google "water and the environment" you will get billions of results, but what does that prove? You seem to be trying to prove that the subject of water as it applies to environmentalism is notable, however no one is claiming that it is not notable. The nomination and most of the delete comments are based on the fact that the subject is discussed at great length in several other articles. In other words, this article is a useless content fork (that is, if it were updated to actually have any appreciable content, then it would become a content fork). I haven't heard any arguments yet which refute that point. SnottyWong express 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some nations they have a minister for Water and the Environment, calling it that. [1]. I see there are agencies dedicated to this as well, such as the Anglian Water and the Environment Agency [1]. Not every search result is about that, but there are plenty of them. This term is commonly used. Dream Focus 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly sure you'll find that the ministry in question covers the wikt:conjunction of water and the environment, not the wikt:intersection of the two, as the article does. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In some nations they have a minister for Water and the Environment, calling it that. [1]. I see there are agencies dedicated to this as well, such as the Anglian Water and the Environment Agency [1]. Not every search result is about that, but there are plenty of them. This term is commonly used. Dream Focus 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The boilerplate WP:GHITS argument from Dream Focus is even less compelling than usual for this article. There's no doubt that if you google "water and the environment" you will get billions of results, but what does that prove? You seem to be trying to prove that the subject of water as it applies to environmentalism is notable, however no one is claiming that it is not notable. The nomination and most of the delete comments are based on the fact that the subject is discussed at great length in several other articles. In other words, this article is a useless content fork (that is, if it were updated to actually have any appreciable content, then it would become a content fork). I haven't heard any arguments yet which refute that point. SnottyWong express 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is too vague to be of any use as it offers no policy-based argument for deletion. Our actual editing policy is to retain and develop stubs on such evidently notable topics. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vague" boilerplate references to WP:IMPERFECT likewise "offers no policy-based argument for" keeping an obvious (unsourced and largely contentless) WP:CFORK. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As far as I can tell this article is nothing but a list of the phases of water followed by a list of some articles related to water. Plus, all possible additions to this page should already be covered in another, more fitting article (for example, erosion, or the section of the water page covering its effect on life.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Yaksar. Johnfos (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very poor content fork of Water, especially Water#On_Earth and Water#Effects_on_life. An article of this sort should be developed organically as a split-off from Water per WP:SS, not simply created as a haphazard and unsourced stub. Sandstein 09:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is all done elsewhere far better, just not worth rescuing such a vague concept. Szzuk (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2011 (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.