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. Lots of ideas here about merges; discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. No consensus for a particular action has arisen from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply

[edit]

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

Looks like WP:OR The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably attributable to sources; the tables appear to be and other information can probably be found in existing articles. Merge to Primary energy? Peter James (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original research is done by about 200 experts of the International Energy Agency. They collect, analyse and publish periodically huge amounts of energy supply data. Worldwide energy supply aims to be a short summary, suitable for Wikipedia.

I like Peter's idea to merge to Primary energy, the two articles are complimentary. But then the title should not be Primary energy which is only a part of the whole energy supply chain. Rwbest (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some parts of the article read like an essay (e.g. mankind has used fuel since ancient time with the control of fire), but others are salvageable (e.g. the table in Worldwide_energy_supply#Energy_production). I have no informed opinion about whether the title is appropriate for a summary article, or whether the article should be split-merged in multiple pieces (many possible targets; one can look at Outline_of_energy#Energy_industry for inspiration). Tigraan (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split-merge in multiple pieces would eliminate the article's clear sequence of processes in energy supply, production - conversion and trade - final consumption. Rwbest (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on MGTom's talk page to comment on merge to Primary energy, but he doesn't respond. Is he still active on WP? Is it correct that I start merging on my own? Rwbest (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with merging yourself but you should refrain from significant edits on an article that is at AfD. So, you can edit target articles (and follow WP:BRD on these pages) but do not blank entire sections of this one. (The most frequent case is that a short stub will get deleted but a couple of sentences can be copied to a larger article, in which case doing it saves work from the closing admin.) Tigraan (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Primary energy in Worldwide energy supply, leaving out thermodynamic terminology that I consider not appropriate in this general description of energy supply. But it could be added in a separate section. Rwbest (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table in Primary energy does not reflect the sources to carriers conversion sufficiently accurate and complete to fit in Worldwide energy supply. I'm trying to improve it. Rwbest (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this may and need to be improved but it's imaginably acceptable as a subject somehow. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 April 2016 (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.