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. John254 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic geoengineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Apologies to the author, who is clearly very valuable and knowedgeable contributor. A very interesting topic, but unfortunately fails the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia: the term is a neologism, nowhere found, and the article is an inadmissible synthesis of various geoengineering activities into a brand hot new subject, "hydrological geoengineering", which has zero google hits outside wikipedia. What is more, there is no definition of "hydrological geoengineering", and therefore I conclude that the author's collection of the described projects into a single aricle is his opinion, i.e., either original research or arbitrary collection of information. There is even insufficient evidence that every of these projects is described as "geoengineering" in valid sources. In particular, I seriously doubt that northern river reversal is an example of "geoengineering". I would suggest the author to split the article sectionwise into separate articles, because the information itself is very interesting; it is only it cannot be collected under the neologistic article title. I could have done the split myself, but I don't want to encroach on the credits of Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs).`'Míkka>t 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--in agreement with a very thorough job done by the nominator. Fascinating stuff, indeed, and probably well worth creating or merging elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and split as suggested above. I agree that both the title and the synthesis are problematic. However, there is important, sourced material in the page that should be preserved. Deletion is a blunt instrument unsuited to dealing with article issues that should be handled through editorial processes. TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material of the article is solely by a single author, who is currently active. I see no trouble for him to split his cotribution into several pages. "Hydrological geoengineering" is discussed nowhere yet. Period. Even if we close the eyes on WP:SYNTH and define H.GE. as as a hydrology-related subset of GE., you have yet show me that dealing with ice packs is a subject of hydrology. So, what now? Shall we write a yet another article Glaciological geoengineering? How about geomorphological geoengineering? Oceanologcal geoengineering? One can think of hundreds of valid titles in this way. The question is whether they are reasonably notable and discussed elsewhere before we put them into wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm trying to pull together a summary of all the knowledge on the subject of geoengineering on behalf of the 'googlegroup' of experts working on the topic. It's worth pointing out that my work, and that of other contributors, is very closely scrutinised by the foremost professionals in the field, notably Ken Caldeira and Alvia Gaskill. If anything was seriously amiss, they would have pointed it out.

It's an emerging field, and there are 2 problems with nomenclature

1. There is no standard lexicon. For example, space mirrors could be referred to as a solar shade, space sunshade, geoengineering satellite, etc. All would be correct and meaningful, although probably quite tricky to find.
2. There is no standard categorisation, as other users have rightly pointed out. I'm intending to broadly split up the existing selection of techniques into the hierarchy below

greenhouse gas removal

• biological
• chemical

hydrological geoengineering

• river
• sea ice
• glacial

solar radiation management

• space
• atmosphere
• terrestrial/ocean

This work is not novel, but is a new categorisation structure. The alternatives are:

1. Put every single technique on a new page (even though it doesn't have an established name, and will be hard to find with arbitrary names)
2. Put every single technique on one page - which would be enormous and almost unusable.

I think the splitting system I've devised is logical and uses established academic disciplines (i.e. hydrology) to group the work. I stress this work is supervised, and in the absence of an alternative workable system, I suggest it stays. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Moved to Arctic geoengineering. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please notify me (or tag with Template:TransWikiversity) if this will get deleted so we can transwiki import to Wikiversity --mikeu ^talk 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep now that it's been moved. Easily meets notability guidelines.Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 21:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out that there are lots of other geoeng projects proposed for the arctic that aren't hydrological. where are these supposed to go? in fact, virtually every geoeng technique can be used for the arctic. BTW can the tags come off now?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are supposed to go in an article about arctic geoengineering, so please focus on improving the current article. The tags can stay up to five days, so please don't worry about it and let the process work itself out. Concentrate on improving the current article by adding more sources. Non-hydrological geoengineering projects can certainly be added to an article focused on the arctic, and we no longer have to worry about the problematic wording of "hydrological geoengineering". We've crossed that bridge, so let's try making it to the next one. Don't look back. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep well written, well sourced article. New name solves neologisim issue. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. SriMesh | talk 05:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fascinating and thoroughly referenced article. Lithoderm 05:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While, according to Google, the actual term "Arctic geoengineering" is not used all that much (though sometimes it is: http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/pipermail/oceancurrents/2006/000038.html ), the concept is certainly there, and is talked about both by scientists ( http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/energypmp/2007_Caldeira.ppt ) and the media (

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00.html , http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20081001gd.html ) Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2009 (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.