Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020s in climate history

2020s in climate history

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2020s in climate history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:OR, the author had to do OR or WP:SYNTH to create it Bruxton (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep. the article in its current form is simply excerpts from existing relevant articles. so clearly, it is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Sm8900 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

From my reading of WP:SYNTH - "...material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." I will see what others have to say, and will withdraw if I am alone in my reading of the guidelines.

Examples of articles that have to do with weather not climate - and many are just about fires

• BBC reference says nothing about climate history, it is about weather not climate.
• Local fire article - not about climate
• Another weather article
• This is some kind of fire blog
• There are many fire articles like this involving weather Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

let me clarify, all of that material was generated because I literally used {{excerpt|2022 United Kingdom heat wave}}, to pull an excerpt from the article 2022 United Kingdom heat wave. for some reason, template:excerpt pulled a section from the middle of the article, rather than the opening section, as I intended. since you are raising that as an issue, I will retain only the opening excerpt for that article. Sm8900 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong keep I think this subject is important enough for its own article. It could do with expanding. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The current article largely consists of excerpts from other articles, and as such it's invalid to blame any internal synthesis on this one or its author. Even if this article were to consist of pure OR, the sheer notability and importance of this topic would still make deletion unjustifiable. Glades12 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is kept, as seems likely, it needs to be referenced correctly. As it stands all of the cites for the short form references are missing (e.g. IPCC AR6 WG1 2021 is not a reference, it is a broken link), and there is a completely missing reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  Actually make that delete. The article is missing nearly all of its sourcing due to the use of {{excerpt}} and it's incompatibility with short form refs and even named refs. To fix this the {{excerpt}} would need to be replaced with written text, and {{main}} used instead. By that point though it would be a completely different article, so WP:TNT applies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  it would not be different at all. all we need to do is to copy and paste the text that is already part of that article. the content would not change in any way, Sm8900 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT. The referencing is shot, and the scope is far too broad. Normally, summary articles like this cover a decade at most. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

originally it was meant to cover the 2020s, but someone renamed it. Can we please change it back?--Sm8900 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

the referencing has been fully updated. Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you look into turning on no target errors, all of the cites used by short form refs (e.g. {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}}) are still missing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion, there are strong opinions for "Keep" and "Delete". Please do not move article while it is being discussed at AFD, it complicates closing the discussion as well as relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TNT. This article, which currently consists of disjointed excerpts from related articles, would need to be completely written to be a coherent article. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)