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 no consensus. Discuss a possible merge in the talk page. Secret ^account 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early anthropocene[edit]

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

This RS-weak article (stared in 2005) takes a WP:POVFORK position by redunantly affirming only one side of what we report as a controversy at Anthropocene (started in 2003). That controversy is whether the anthropocene should be considered to have started at the dawn of the fossil fuel age (1850 ish) or whether it should be considered to have started much earlier. The premise of this article is that the latter view is the correct view. That's a POVFORK. The content of Early anthropocene is already part of the main Anthropocene article, but repeats these facts as conclusive, rather than as one side of a debate. Any unique info I may have overlooked here should be merged there and the rest of this article should be wasted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic deserves an article. This is a distinct enough sub-topic of Anthropocene to be worth lifting out of that article. The current article isn't too bad, but could benefit from the text currently in Anthropocene William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion is noted, but what's your response to the alleged POVFORK problem? (I have elaborated on the nature in my opening comment) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd move/align the two William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as an "AGREE" since this proposal does that very thing. If you have other mechanics in mind, please articulate them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it's a POV fork. The article involves a bit more detail on this topic than the Anthropocene article, and does present at least one possible challenge to Ruddiman's hypothesis. There's not really any evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that the creation of this article is due to an inability to achieve consensus on the earlier article, so I'm not sure what the basis is for calling this a POV fork, rather than an expansion on a topic only touched on in the previous article. I'm not strongly opposed to merging the two articles, but I'm not sure that I see a compelling reason to do so, or to delete this article. J. Langton (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources for the article don't even seem directly related to the article's subject, just to the wider field of study. This looks like a combination of essay writing and original research problems, in addition to the obvious notability issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems a poorly written article on a probably notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anthropocene J04n(talk page) 11:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:SPINOFF, and a Google Scholar search yields several additional sources. If kept, though, it should be moved to Early anthropocene theory due to its non-acceptance by mainstream academia. Miniapolis 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question To meet WP:SPINOFF criteria, an article has to be "long" and spinoff wikilinks to WP:SIZE. On which hook at WP:SIZE are you hanging your hat, when you imply the combined articles would be too long? Even combined as is they would still be shorter than most of what I edit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect or Merge. The whole point of the concept of the Anthropocene is to discuss what effects humans have had on the Earth, and when those effects began. It is a unitary concept that should not be split because some people don't like other people's ideas. Undoubtedly the main article needs to address all points of view that are debated in scholarly sources. Forking out this material is the wrong way to go. Abductive (reasoning) 21:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 21:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 08:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ruddiman's hypothesis is notable, being covered in sources which have no particular axe to grind such as Functional Biology of Plants. The issue of forking is irrelevant to the question of deletion because inappropriate forks are addressed by merger, not deletion - see WP:CFORK. Warden (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupportable reasoning. (A)Since notability is not at issue that's a moot red herring. (B) Merger is an acceptable way to end an AFD. See WP:CLOSEAFD.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It is a notable theory with credible citations. However renaming with +theory is appropriate DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability arguments are moot so your "weak keep" is not yet supported with an applicable reason. What's your response to Abductive's reasoning above, and your reason to object to merging? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect - Agree with nominator. Not quite an article yet and fork, but with development and WP:RS could be some day. Just not today. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (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.