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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues with shipping

[edit]

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

I am also nominating

Each of these are simply content forks of Ship pollution, some simply taking a few sentences and stretching them out into their own article. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand . These are 3 different situations that should have been nominated separately if nominated at all. . Environmental issues with shipping is a sketch for a more comprehensive article than the present Ship pollution. They should be merged, and the title environmental issues with shipping' is the better title. "Ship pollution" can equally well mean the pollution of ships as the pollution by ships. Ballast water and the Environment is a considerable expansion of the relevant section of the present article on Ship pollution, including a section of examples by country that can be when developed much too large to fit into the general article. Cruise ship pollution is again a considerable expansion of the present general article. I commend the effort to develop this topic, which can and should be the subject of a number of more specific articles; what is mainly needed is further expansion, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fork. "Env issues" is obviously the least developed of them, and it was not appropriate to nominate two other obviously better articles with this one as an example. Agree with merge for the main nomination, but not with the names; we have a rare chance here to get away from the rubberstamped WP name format, let's take it. Another term I would take every possible rare opportunity to avoid would be 'environment', which, as I understand it, is a synonym for the specific term 'habitat', and is used in an erroneously broad sense meaning all ecosystems; Ecological is almost always the better term, if there is a chance to use it. Anarchangel (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, I've expanded a bit on a few of the sections. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 13:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Also, just because an article is not in the best shape does not mean it's worthy of deletion. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three since they are distinct and notable topics but Cruise ship pollution can almost be a merge and redir with Ship pollution. If anything all the nominated articles should be merged into Environmental issues with shipping being the topic that covers all the articles. However, I do not want that since the article should be expanded. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 7 March 2011 (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.