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. Sandstein 06:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a monograph, written in the style of a review article. The author is an academic, which no doubt explains the fact that it reads as a novel synthesis from primary sources. The number of sources is actually quite small, and consists in large part of statistics, based on which the article makes its arguments. As a topic it is largely redundant to World energy consumption, which is a collaboratively written article. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not synthesize but summarizes statistics from the large IEA database. It differs from World energy consumption:

uses same unit, Mtoe, for all sorts of energy instead of Mt for coal, bcm for gas, etc.
clearly distinguishes primary energy, total primary energy supply and final energy consumption.

Rwbest (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rwbest (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Under Wikipedia policies, that is exactly the definition of novel synthesis. It is your interpretation drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rwbest explains above the article "... summarizes statistics from the large IEA database." Making his own story based in information he selectively picked from a large database seems to me to be original research. - Robotje (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_summary. Original research has been done by IEA. Rwbest (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this article is not OR: it is not an interpretation, nor a new thesis, nor making a new statement, not supported by sources. The article is a summary, the author digested the material for the readers. The reader doesn't have to search through the IEA-tables himself.

Citation from "SYNTH is not summary": "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

Maybe the article lacks some quality because it is just a summary and some improvements are possible. Koos van den beukel (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you drawn here from the discussions on the Dutch Wikipedia, by any chance? I notice this is your first edit this year. I disagree with your analysis (obviously). This article is drawn wholly form primary sources and makes arguments the primary sources themselves do not make. It is a very common thing for academics like the author of this article to write pages that would be entirely normal in academic publishing but which violate Wikipedia's policies against original research. Wikipedia editors are supposed to defer to external expertise, not be experts themselves. The fact that this article is a monograph is a large part of the problem, but not by any means the whole problem. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears unnecessary when World energy consumption already exists and explains its key tenets. They would appear to be extremely similar to the point where one of them is not needed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, World_energy_consumption uses data from fossil fuel industry (BP, World coal Institute) which are primary. About 200 IEA experts gather data from governments and industry, check and organize them, so the IEA publications are in fact external expertise. Rwbest (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you say, it's original research. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rwbest (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just YES-NO back and forth, why is it or is it not WP:OR??--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content stinks. The article "Worldwide energy supply" is certainly notable and is different from "World energy consumption" (one is supply, the other is demand). The content may have WP:OR violations. If so, that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. This article is on its third AFD now:No Consensus, then Keep. I see no new deletion arguments introduced. That the article is written by an academic is not a reason to delete. That the article reads like a novel is not a reason to delete. And I don't really like the colors in the graphs--but that isn't a reason to delete either. Sometimes an article is so poorly written that we are better off deleting the article, but that isn't hte case here. These are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that it reads like a novel, the issue is that it's a novel synthesis from primary sources. The (sole) author essentially admits it. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. More a WP:TNT issue. The sole author (it is a monograph despite its enormous length) is an academic. This is a classic Wikipedia problem: this would be fine as a paper in a journal, but it's his synthesis of the sources, and even if he didn't have massive WP:OWN tendencies there is nobody else who is writing this article so it's not going to get fixed. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Wikipedia is not a host for academic papers. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research with sources that do not back up the statements in the text (you have to start calculating yourself). The Banner talk 08:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tabulation of available data from good sources , and making obvious arithmetical and graphic modifications of it , its not OR, but rather the proper use of sources to summarize a subject. We cannot write abut technical subjects without doing this. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 17 May 2018 (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.