Talk:Energy economics

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge International Association for Energy Economics into Energy economics; alternative to deletion for notability; merge for context. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

---

File:Merge-arrows.svg

Formal request has been received to merge: International Association for Energy Economics into Energy economics; dated: July 2023. Proposer's Rationale: The page for this association has been tagged with multiple issues for five years: COI, ADVERT, single source, and lack of multiple sources. The only issue that's been resolved in several years is the removal of copyvio from the Association's official website. Current sources for this article are almost entirely links to this organization, its publications, and its affiliate organizations. The exceptions were to one third party summary of an IAEE publication and to one Archive.org page, which appears to have tried to reference an affiliate IAEE chapter but instead pulls up an unrelated page of old movie posters. Although this organization ought to be notable--it's nearly fifty years old and has legitimate academics on its council--it keeps such a low profile that there doesn't seem to be enough independent third party coverage to rewrite this obvious PR piece into an encyclopedic article. If anyone wants to try, here are the sources I was able to dig up.[1][2] Most of the search engine returns resolved to primary sources or the LinkedIn pages of individuals affiliated with the organization. Since there doesn't seem to be a prospect of a reasonably encyclopedic article about this association itself, propose merging salvageable content into the general topic of Energy economics. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC) for proposer, TheTortillaBook. Discuss here.

It's been a month with no responses on the article talk page. Thinking of waiting another two weeks and then doing a bold merger if there's still no response. Sounds good? If not then what's your recommendation? TheTortillaBook (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition expressed, I'd say go for it. It has been over a month now and is getting stale. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• • • It's been a month with no responses on the article talk page. Thinking of waiting another two weeks and then doing a bold merger if there's still no response. Sounds good? If not then what's your recommendation? TheTortillaBook (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Moved to merge discussion area. Should consider proceeding BOLDLY sooner than later. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the advice. Hoping for at least a second editor more familiar with the topic. Willing to give this a little more time before moving boldly. TheTortillaBook (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
          • Great. However, please confine merge talk to this page. Thanks, GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait for an RM to voice our opinions when a justifiable reversion of this proposed merge occurs. I'm wondering what you're waiting for already! Intrisit (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Merge done Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Gold

What if, as Thomas Gold maintains, energy scarcity is a myth? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:858D:5104:7C54:5C73 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)