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 keep and improve.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails the notability guidelines. The only external source is http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/ (both links link to this website) and there is a link to the declaration of human rights, but that by itself is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Reads like an essay. No independent coverage. Brusegadi 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. - The topic itself is notable, and the article doesn't do justice to it. Needs a lot of work. --Blanchardb 23:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep article needs much work, and is this the best name for it? JJL 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree (per nom) that the article reads like an essay. Even the first sentence, 'climate ethics is a new and growing area of research", declares that this is a neologism at best. No sources, no assertion of notability. If the number of "participating institutions" really "participate", you'd think this would be better sourced. Reads like an advertisement for the website that follows (EDCC). Good nomination. Keeper | 76 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this article is the ONLY contribution from the creator of the page. Maybe OK, maybe spam, maybe sock. Keeper | 76 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic itself is notable, as evidenced by the participation by universities, conferences in Buenos Aires, association with the United Nations, etc. I agree that it reads like an essay, albeit one with some sources. However, POV problems and awkward language can be improved. Mandsford 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The problem is that there is no other coverage of this stuff given to us. For all we know we are simply advertising their stuff. Notice that the only sources given are a tangental one to the declaration of human rights and one to a website with vested interests. Brusegadi 03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment. I noted above that the creator of the article, Ntuana, has ONLY created and modified this article and nothing else in wikipedia. Interesting how the director of the Rock Ethics Institute, which sponsored all the collaborations and issued the resolution called "White Paper", which is what this article is primarily about, is named Nancy Tuana.. Hmm,now, it's not only NN, in my opinion, it's also WP:COI and WP:SPAM. It's also an WP:ADVERT disguised in academic language. I'm not fooled. Keeper | 76 15:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is noteable. Google search, term = "Climate ethics", yields 14 million results. I picked several relevant ones from the first two pages of results and put them in the article's External links section. People might want to look at a few of them before voting 'delete'. They also contain source information that future editors could incorporate.

  The present article is drawn, largely verbatim, from publications of the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change organisation. It also describes the organisation. My approach to this article would be to condense this material and add new material from other sources to provide balance. Possibly a separate article on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change group could be started and some of the present material put there.

  I think what probably happened here is that the woman from Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change thought they had done some good writing on this subject, which they probably have, and decided to donate it to us. Not so terrible. La la ooh 0:58, 15 November

• Strong keep. The idea is also used in the UN--Mac 07:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Willing to change my delete stance with major improvements. I went to the sites that La la ooh pointed out, and have mixed feelings about them. They are either too closely tied to the author of the article (COI, OR, SYN, and POV issues) or they are blogs/forums, which historically have been deemed unreliable by the WP community. Right now, the article is not titled right, as La la ooh also pointed out, because it is not a comprehensive look at both sides of "Climate Ethics", but in fact only summarizes the EDCC stance and advertises for the White Paper that it published. As the article stands, even with the added resources, I still say delete, but there is hope for the subject itself with major improvements. It will remain on my watchlist, as I'm sure by the nature of the responses to this AfD that it will be kept. Keeper | 76 15:58, 15 November 2007 (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.