Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Common Agenda for Health and Environment

: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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[A Common Agenda for Health and Environment]]=

:{{la|A Common Agenda for Health and Environment}} ([{{fullurl:A Common Agenda for Health and Environment|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Common Agenda for Health and Environment}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unsourced unencyclopedic coatrack for an organization. Alexius08 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is biased (a coatrack). It presents an example of generational goal setting as an approach to public policy-making. In my edits to address others' comments I have added, in my opinion, sufficient detail to show that the Common Agenda is a reputable document and a new idea for the online community to consider. Again, I welcome specific suggested improvements.--Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam, even though I keep thinking about the children and what are the six goals? "....six Generational Goals to be achieved within one generation that will leave our children a healthy world full of hope and possibility." Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is my first voyage into wiki and I'm learning as I go. One reason why there are few links to other pages is because generational goals is such a new idea. I had planned on making a generational goals page as well, but it would also have few links to other pages and sites. Really, only Sweden has used this policy approach for their Environmental Quality Objectives, which outline 16 generational goals for improving the quality of Sweden's environment.

Please advise on how to improve this page as I believe it is an important concept to introduce to the public, but is fairly uncommon and therfore, not linkable.

--Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Have addressed Drawn Some's comments by adding the 6 goals and their objectives and priority actions. Have also addressed Alexius08's comments by adding content as opposed to organizational information. On what other grounds should this page be deleted? --Toward tomorrow (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - unnotable, spammy coatrack. Eusebeus (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.