Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy

Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is a remake of petroleum dependence. Brunt of the discussion there was that this is simply a referenced essay by a user. I don't believe that "Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy" has any particular coinage as a term, and if it does, the article doesn't address that well. I don't think much has changed since it was deleted before, and I'm positive that creating this was not consistent with the previous delete consensus. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Yes, this strikes me as a essay/POV fork as well. However, it does seem like a valid way to categorize various sources of energy, so I would suggest it be redirected to a category, ex Category:Carbon-free and nuclear-free energy and populated. --Gwern (contribs) 14:53 24 October 2007 (GMT)
  • delete: No evidence the term is used anywhere in a significant way and not just by happenstance of proximity in a google search. And with respect to the above a category for non-fossil-fuel non-nuclear energy is simply the intersection (or lack thereof) of two other categories. Should we start to categorize things by category intersection I fear an interminable number of pidgeonholes would be created. For instance the existance of non-petroleum, non-nuclear power as a category would imply: Nuclear, non-petroleum power; non-petroleum nuclear power, and so on. Maybe to a more direct comparison, taking the intersection of musical artists from Sweeden and Death Metal bands in the same manner, would make "Sweedish non-death-metal bands," "British bands that aren't rock-and-roll," and so on... 129.89.68.218 21:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The subject is notable; the article is sourced and based on published sources. Hence it can not be purely an essay.Biophys 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and put in more about what I think. delete. Actually read through this article and ask yourself what is opinion and what is genuine informative information. Examples:
  • In other countries, with more nuclear and fossil independence, the main electricity source are renewables - This part references Wind power in Spain. Spain gets 10% of their electricity from wind and 10% from hydro. You can be the judge of the accuracy of this statement.
  • there have been people who have claimed that the production of high level nuclear waste and damage done by Uranium mining is comparable to the environmental damage done by coal or petroleum. - here, when the article does make a clear claim, it's nothing but an attempt to insert unreferenced information in Wikipedia that could not survive in the main articles.
I could go through and try to remove the POV and information repeated from other articles in this article, there would be like 2 sentences left that didn't say anything useful. The entire point of this article is to create an ambiguous subject matter for someone to rant on. And like I said, it's already been deleted once, we already have too many ambiguous articles on sustainable development, and this is pure spam. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 October 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.