Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by carbon intensity
- 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.
Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
]
List of countries by carbon intensity
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of countries by carbon intensity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I suggest this article is not useful to readers because:
1) The stats in the article are very detailed and out of date.
2) I doubt anyone will want to spend time updating the stats.
3) I don't think carbon intensity is a useful way to measure countries: because a very poor country with low emissions could have the same value as a very rich country with high emissions - however the poor country may need to increase its emissions without necessarily increasing its GDP - for example certain changes to the way people grow their own food to make sure they get enough to eat. Similarly some rich countries, e.g. Japan, may have much less renewable energy resources than others.
4) Article only covers energy so the title is misleading.
5) Other greenhouse gases are also important.
Chidgk1 (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Draftify. If someone wants to update the stats, then they can (and if not, it will eventually get deleted as abandoned). If the stats are fixed (that's the only way the article would be useful), then #4 can be addressed with a page move and #3 and #5 are normal-type limitations of a measurement. A paragraph added to the article to explain the limitations would fix that. But with stats from 2011, then the article doesn't have much of a use. So draftify to give people an opportunity to fix the stats. 19:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ah thanks I had not heard of draftifying before. Sounds good. But does that mean someone has to put the draft under their account?Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- It would just need to be taken to the draft space, where it would hang out waiting for people to edit it. After about six months in the draft space with no edits, it would likely be considered to be abandoned and then deleted. The idea is that once it enters the draft space, it gets edited and fixed. Basically the idea is that the article could be potentially be a usable article, but has flaws that need to be addressed before the article should be returned to the public view (in this case, 8-year old stats that need updating badly). Hog Farm (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Cool. If you have more accountants, you pollute less. This will save the world. Anarchangel (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- I am strongly against deleting this article. Old statistics are still useful. I suggest changing the name to "List of countries by carbon intensity (1980-2011)". A new article "List of countries by carbon intensity" could be created with much less detail to keep track. The single table format of the List of companies by carbon dioxide emissions per year Maybe statisticians (and accountants) "are our last hope for the world's ecosystems".Oceanflynn (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[1]]
References
- ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-07.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment, nominator appears to want this deleted because the information is out of date, not a reason for deletion, keepers above appear to want it retained WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)]
- As the nominator I would say that it should be deleted because it is useless. Who is it useful for and how? However if these discussions should proceed via Wikpedia jargon then yes it is up to whoever wants to keep it to say how it meets ]
- Delete. There is very little encyclopedic value in this article other than a massive list of ]
- Keep. At the moment, this page is the only source of this data. The original spreadsheet has been removed from the US Energy Information Administration's page for unknown reasons and is only partly archived at the internet archive. The subject, carbon intensity by country by year, is important enough to be referenced almost 100 times in articles and papers by the Energy Information Administration as well as in many other outside articles but that same agency does not provide the raw data any more. This article is notable and useful for anyone reading those or other articles who wish to verify the data. [1] 69.209.27.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- So if I understand 69.209.27.128 right they are arguing that Wikipedia is the only source of some of the data? I thought that was against Wikipedia policy such as ]
- Delete. While interesting if it wasn't a just a tabulation of data talk) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (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.