Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geoengineering papers

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. I'm willing to userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of geoengineering papers

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

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

Textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 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) 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this violates WP:NOT. If kept, the two lists should be merged since the split seems to be entirely random. Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This list has obviously taken a long time to collect and it is almost certainly useful to many people. However, that place is not here. Replace the word geoengineering with a more mature academic discipline, such as physics, and the reason that this should not be on Wikipedia is evident. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the two above !votes – Not to be overly critical, but WP:NOT is an entire guideline page. These articles certainly cannot fail the entire guideline page! See also: WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTEVERYTHING: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." [emphasis added] -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it usefully extends List of proposed geoengineering schemes. Re: comment above, geoengineering is a FAR narrower field than physics, which is why you can fit all of the relevant papers on a couple of WP pages. I agree that the two lists should be merged, but the reference template breaks when you do it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think that this is a sign that Wikipedia is not meant to include these large directories of links. Broken in half, this is really close to useless. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the approximately 16000 papers on geoengineering are you planning on adding to this growing list of papers? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ ~~Leaning Keep~~ – ~~Contrary to the nomination, these list articles are actually not whatsoever a violation of WP:NOTDIR.~~ Points two to seven of WP:NOTDIR aren't applicable to these two articles at all. Point one of WP:NOTDIR (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics) also doesn't apply because these aren't loosely associated papers within these list article. Rather, the entries are discriminate and focused upon papers about the specific topic of geoengineering. Rather than blanket deletion of this significant work, perhaps these articles could be merged into one article as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the List of proposed geoengineering schemes article. Importantly, see also WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think point 1 clearly applies, especially if you read the clarification provided by WP:SALAT. The topic of geoengineering is very broad and its boundaries are ill-defined. Criteria for inclusion in this list will therefore always be unclear and subject to editor's subjective assessments. Note also that this is a very hot (no pun intended) area of research so we're likely to need List of geoengineering papers (part 3) or List of geoengineering papers (part 4) down the road further lowering the odds of finding relevant information. As IRWolfie points out there are excellent online repositories (most notably the Oxford database) and we should send point our readers there rather than offering a very poor substitute split in half and therefore unsearchable, lacking keyword search, lacking abstracts. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

userify, or possibly transwikify Per WP:SALAT, the list is indiscriminate and of almost unlimited extent and thus not suitable. There is nothing to prevent this list going on for thousands and thousands of papers. If it is going to be kept in some form it should be into narrowly defined subtopics that at least puts some limitations on size (the most interested person can do this splitting). The article is also pointless; article databases like google scholar etc already exist and do a much better job than these very large lists. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consider the notion of these lists being expanded when formulating my !vote above, which would make navigation more difficult. Perhaps other means to organize the data by sections and transfer it all onto one page is possible. However, if these articles are to be deleted, it would be a waste of time to organize it all just to see it vanish. I slightly modified my !vote above, and it may change further after further consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my above !vote. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. Johnfos (talk) 04:03, 17 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.