Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arctic wilderness zone

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Arctic wilderness zone]]=

:{{la|Arctic wilderness zone}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arctic_wilderness_zone Stats])

:({{Find sources|Arctic wilderness zone}})

While we do have a reliable source for the Canadian National Wildlife Area created back in 2008, I have not been able to find anything on the web to indicate that this proposed "Arctic wilderness zone" has been formally proposed by anyone. It would would appear to be entirely WP:OR, unless the article name is wrong. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete It's clear from the text of the reference that the actual name is National Wildlife Area and that these are not a special type of area. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • That wasn't clear to me; then a redirect would be in order, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Canadian National Wildlife Area is a completely different area. This one covers a much larger region. It has not received any ratification, as it is still just a proposal. It is pointless to delete it because after it is ratified it would just need to be re-created. I will try to find out more information about it so that more references can be added. We do not delete proposed pop albums - we document that so and so is planning on coming out with the album, and then when they do we fill in the details. I will also try to find out which organizations are behind the proposal. If it is only one, it can be redirected to a paragraph about it in that organization's article. I suspect that it is a lot more than one. A search of arctic wilderness zone turns up 2.7 million results. It will take me a little while to go through all of them. Delphi234 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  • You needn't go through them all. If this is a recent proposal, Google should show some results fairly prominently. I didn't see anything, as I said, but I'd be happy if you turn out to be right. But if no reliable sources can be found, we wouldn't lose much by its deletion, as it's still a very short stub. But you could have it moved to your userspace, I suppose, or we could choose to have it "incubated." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • When I search for the exact phrase in Google, I get only five or so web hits, and most of them are in Wikipedia. I get no news hits at all. It seems to me that an article title ought to get a good number of exact phrase hits. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I tried that too. My guess is that it will take a few months to find a source - so moving to userspace in the meantime works - as does incubation. Delphi234 (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This one is close:[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/melting-arctic/] It talks about protecting arctic sea ice. It is from 2009. Delphi234 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the continent of antarctic is protected, but this proposal would be specifically everything south of the 65th parallel and north of the 65th parallel. It may be a slightly larger area than has been previously considered. Delphi234 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is a June 15, 2012 discussion of the Arctic in the Congress.[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf] I would guess that the Sierra Club would take a slightly different approach, to say the least. Delphi234 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is a discussion in the UK parliament, taking the exact opposite of the US discussion.[http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/protecting-the-arctic/] Delphi234 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The WWF has a program started in 1992 called the "Arctic Programme" to protect the arctic.[http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/norway/index.cfm?uProjectID=9E0077] For now this might be almost close enough to redirect the article to a paragraph about that program, but I am guessing that many other groups are involved. We currently have only a single word about their arctic program. Delphi234 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is what Greenpeace said about protecting the arctic, in 2009. At that time they were concerned only about sea ice areas.[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/polar-seas/arctic/protecting-the-arctic/] Delphi234 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Found it. It is an announcement at the Rio Earth Summit, by Sir Richard Branson, Pedro Almodovar, Thom Yorke, Emily Blunt, Baaba Maal, Lucy Lawless, Javier Bardem, Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel and nine Oscar winners, ten Golden Globe winners and five Grammy Award winners. They are planning to take it to the UN. "The focus of the Greenpeace campaign will initially be on pushing for a UN resolution demanding a global sanctuary around the pole, and a ban on oil drilling and unsustainable fishing in the wider Arctic. Twenty years ago in Antarctica – at the other end of the Earth – something similar was created when the mining industry was banned from operating there and the continent was dedicated to science and research."[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Stars-launch-campaign-to-save-the-Arctic/] Delphi234 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • All this is interesting enough, and could support a section in the article on the arctic or one of the existing subarticles on international cooperation. I don't think it justifies an article in itself. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • With 2.7 million search results, I think there is more than enough material for it to have its own article, in addition to a section in the article, but for now it could certainly be redirected to a section in the arctic article. It also is a distinctly separate subject. Delphi234 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Those three words may have "2.7 million search results," but not the concept that is the subject of this article. That's a vital distinction, and one in which I agree entirely with Mangoe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:V, as it lacks reliable sources treating the "Arctic wilderness zone" concept. Even the Greenpeace press release contains no use of the term wilderness at all, much less the article's title, and claiming some sort of connection with the Antarctic Treaty, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the TV show Frozen Planet, the WWF's Arctic Programme, or any other arctic-related topics that don't involve the specific proposal set forth in the article's opening sentence constitutes unacceptable synthesis. Deor (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2012 (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.