Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proposed geoengineering schemes Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_proposed_geoengineering_schemes

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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed geoengineering schemes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

This really seem like a case of WP:NOTDIR. Maybe it's not, but as of the current version there is no real criteria for inclusion. Proposed by whom? Anyone can propose something. It doesn't make the proposals notables. Maybe the list could be salvaged by making it about a list of notable geoengineering projects. The list could also be userfied if time constraints make it impossible to re-scope in the short term. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've clarified now that this is for WP:NOTABLE content only. It can't be sensibly merged with geoengineering without a significant loss of content or context. Much of the content is already blue-linked, showing it meets WP:NOTABLE. There are many other examples of 'list' type articles on WP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many are actually notable (significant coverage in independent secondary sources), and how many are notable that aren't already covered in the parent article geoengineering? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve – per WP:PRESERVE. Entries on the page appear to be mostly notable, per the sources in the article. At this time, some of the topics appear to lack individual articles despite their notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:LISTPURP – Restricting it to scientific publications makes sense. I'd sure like to see better explanations of the individual points though. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps there may be some individual projects which should be deleted from the list, but the overall list should be kept. Any red-linked articles can be created, and their presence here is an incentive for interested editors to create the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2012 (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.