Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Petroleum dependence

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, without prejudice to a new article being created with sources or content being recovered for merging (ask me). ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Petroleum dependence

Template:La – (View log)

While I think is great that we have so many articles about energy development and sustainability, this one is redundant with Petroleum, Nuclear power, and Fossil fuel. As it is now, it's simply a referenced essay by a user. By all means, a good article on this could exist, but I would prefer to do our readers a favor by moving the information to the main articles and eliminating the information spam on these subjects. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah sorry, this was my first AfD, I'll get it right next time. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect: While this could be a good topic for an article, this one really is an essay on indirect consequences. If this were rewritten to be an examination of direct, proven direct effects of society's dependence on petroleum, I could see keeping it. Otherwise it probably makes sense to redirect to Non-renewable energy or North American energy independence and possibly merge a bit of the content there. —dgies^t_c 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Petroleum independence is a important affair. I suggest delete the pronuclear radiactive spam. --HybridBoy 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SPAM, writes like an ad or essay. STORMTRACKER 94 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maintain. It includes references and sources and gives a global point of view that want be avoided by nuclear supporters. --Nopetro 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete - My main problem with this article is it's taking the basic info that (if it doesn't already exist in the relevant articles) could be merged into there - and then take away some of the conclusions being made here that IMO go one step further than an article about the subject should. As is, it's a bit essay-like. Barneyboo (Talk) 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The article is indeed an essay or advocacy piece not an encyclopedia article. As such it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. I strongly doubt that we've found the right place for a redirect; the title may be better suited for a disambiguation page than a redirect. On the other hand, iff there are sources about this topic from a global perspective, it may be possible to write an article. But there is no evidence here or in the article that such sources exist. And this content will not be helpful for an encyclopedia article on the topic should such sources exist. GRBerry 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Obvious POV fork. -- Jreferee t/c 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep - POV fork, but seems well-sourced. I can't delete this article, so can another admin to the dirty deed? Bearian 17:27, 11 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.