Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of global warming on Australia

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 per consensus. Good sources added. PeaceNT 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of global warming on Australia

Effects of global warming on Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Although based on some scientific predictions, this is an article about predictions - as per WP:NOT a crystal ball, articles about predicted future events are not really encyclopedic. There are also issues with undue weight, delete ---Peta 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I had merged this elsewhere - but this discussion might be useful; thus the listing on Feb 23. --Peta 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this article should be deleted or redirected. It is a natural sub page of Effects of Global Warming which is extremely general. Climate change and global warming are acknowledged as some of the most important topics in the world and in Australia at present. It is not almost identical to Climate or Climate of Australia as the impacts are on species, biodiversity, industry, human occupation and communities. It is about the impact of changes to climate on a wide variety of areas, not climate. If the page should have been developed more before being put into wikipedia, I can understand that as a criticism, but a listing for deletion and redirection only a few days after commencement seems a bit over reactive. dinghy 14:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is POV speculation on the possible effects of global warming on Australia. Keep. Well done to the people or person who rewrote this article. It is now a good, well-referenced article. I have removed the stub tags because they are no longer appropriate. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:V. On an topic like this, sources must be provide for every fact, otherwise the credibility of the encyclopaedia comes into question. I suggest moving this to user or WikiProject space to be further developed, as I am sure there is enough content to warrant an article. John Vandenberg 02:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Due to significant expansion with some pretty good sources to consider, I withdraw my vote for the moment. John Vandenberg 05:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The items listed are just a sketch for an article, and try to state matters without benefit of sources. I am not sure there will be quite enough for an article yet, but here soon will be, and the page should be reconstructed properly then.DGG 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm no climate change denier, but this is all just speculation, and doesn't really belong in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil 06:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. Unsourced speculation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice save. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All comments above rendered irrelevant by substantial changes/development in content and referencing. Article now has 17 references, most assertions referenced to articles published under Australian government or other undeniably reputable sources. This development of the article will continue over the next 7 days as advised to User PDH who nominated the article for deletion dinghy 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The article now has over 40 referenced statements and is based largely on a report prepared by Australia's premier scientific research organisation the CSIRO. The referencing of the article now compares very favourably with most other articles I have looked at. The article has no POV. The report on which it is based was prepared for the Business Round Table. It ought not be deleted now, even if it should have been before. Could each person who has recommended deletion please review and reconsider your view.

• keep but this is now the summary of a single point of view-- or perhaps everyone in Australia is rational about this. Still, the presentation does represent the consensus, and is not too speculative. Good job of improvement. DGG 07:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - there are so many issues tied in with the existence of this article - there is a need for the Australia Project to get a handle on the environment conservation mess it is in - deleting this article is not going to help SatuSuro 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep WP:CRYSTAL reads: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. This article is well referenced and a good addition to Wiki. --Greatwalk 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is now a decent start on a tough topic. John Vandenberg 07:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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.