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.
No content. Suspect this will be contested so have not gone for speedy deletion or PROD.
Brilliantine (
talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep. There is some content althought not a great deal. At the very least is is a sort of dab page or topic list. The article is a notable topic and serves to fill a gap in article hierarchy:
Putting a page that is a notable topic and has at least some content [up for deletion](oops - had left this out) is a waste of editors time. Surely, given the amount of interest in climate change, editors should adding info about the topic not trying to get them deleted. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
It has no content of its own, it is just an index of links. That is what categories are for, not articles. It is clearly not a dab page. Just because someone might add some content to an article at some stage in the future does not mean it should sit around contentless for now.
Brilliantine (
talk) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
It now has one solitary sentence of content, which does not imply any kind of importance to suggest this should have stature as an independent article.
Brilliantine (
talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep the topic is certainly notable, though the article in its current form needs work. Handschuh-talk to me 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with Alan Liefting's position.
Bouchecl (
talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Entirely pointless delete in the forlorn hope of avoiding thousands of articles about increasingly small subdivisions of the earth
William M. Connolley (
talk) 20:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Might be some punctuation missing there. The statement is a little contradictory. --
Alan Liefting (
talk) - 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable subject, in particular if you views it as a an issue handled political and not just a physical phenomenon divided into articles by political borders.
Tomas e (
talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Clearly KEEP, climate change has a global effect, but it is caused by countries. It belongs to a series of articles about climate change by country, we need more (one for every country), so I suggest a Taskforce or WikiProject to create and enhance them. Climate change in Alberta can be merged into this article and, when convenient, be also enhanced.--
Nopetro (
talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you a lot. I am joining to it. Regards. --
Nopetro (
talk) 07:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Separate articles for each country, showing their policies and whatnot, is perfectly reasonable. Quite encyclopedic. No reason to delete this.
DreamFocus 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep per arguments above. However, I see no point in automatically creating stubs for every country and these articles as potential content forks should not be created until they have sufficient independent content to stand alone, this is not an AfD issue.
Polargeo (
talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (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.