| Revision as of 17:03, 4 October 2007 editNopetro (talk | contribs)12,049 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:04, 4 October 2007 edit undoNopetro (talk | contribs)12,049 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| : Agree. Petroleum independence is a important affair. I suggest delete the pronuclear radiactive spam. --] 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | : Agree. Petroleum independence is a important affair. I suggest delete the pronuclear radiactive spam. --] 21:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per ], writes like an ad or essay. ] ] 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per ], writes like an ad or essay. ] ] 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. --] 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 08:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''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. ] (])</font> 08:34, 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. ] (])</font> 08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 17:04, 4 October 2007
Petroleum dependence
- Petroleum dependence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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 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 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. —dgiesc 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 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)