Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Painting and the 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. Anyone who thinks the content might be mergeable can contact me and I'll sort them out. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

:NOTE: Now merged and redirected. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Painting and the environment]]=

:{{la|Painting and the environment}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Painting and the environment}})

Synthesis, OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a bad read, but Wikipedia isn't the place for theses. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How is this a thesis? A bald assertion doesn't make it so. Indeed, it isn't a thesis at all. It's an encyclopaedia article that would be, in a traditional encyclopaedia, under the title Painting, environmental concerns of or some such. Indeed, that's pretty much the very title that title it is under in at least one other encyclopaedia {{harv|Forbes|1998}}. Moreover, I can look up "paints; health, safety, and environmental factors related to" in the index of {{harv|Seidel|2007}}, a third encyclopaedia, and find that that subject is in volume 18 pages 74 to 75, as a sub-topic of paint. We even have an equivalent sub-topic here, paint#Dangers (a section title that we could improve, learning from a more comprehensive encyclopaedia), for which these two would be quite ordinary break-out sub-articles, as Wikipedia often has, as we aim to reach the same level of coverage as is already in the encyclopaedias we are attempting to provide free content alternatives to.

    I do wonder sometimes whether some people at AFD have a full grasp of what encyclopaedias contain and what we are aiming for in writing one that is intended to be as comprehensive as other existing encyclopaedias. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • How is this different to environmental issues with paint? They seem to be dealing with the exact same subject except in a different order. A simple merger (since there's a small amount in one article that isn't in the other) seems in order, with no deletion required. Which direction the merger should go is a matter of naming conventions. And, as noted above, this subject is quite evidently encyclopaedic.

    The idea that this subject is a heretofore undocumented subject is simply laughable, given how easy it is to find encyclopaedias covering this topic, and bespeaks of yet another unresearched deletion nomination by TenPoundHammer, alas. I'm guessing that this is, like Erpert's equally laughable idea that this is a thesis, another egregious misapplication of the original research policy as a magic catch-all based upon no actual looking to see whether indeed the world does document a subject, and borne not of the application of our content and deletion policies but of some foolish idea that encyclopaedia articles have single-word titles and that stubs and start-class articles are somehow complete and comprehensive explanations of a subject, that can be taken at face value and used as the sole indicators of the coverage or extent of a subject by the encyclopaedia writers who are supposed to be looking at Wikipedia from the point of view of writing and improving our many incomplete articles, which includes a fairly basic step of looking to see what we are aiming for.

    Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • {{cite encyclopaedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety: Chemical, industries and occupations|editor1-first=Jeanne Mager|editor1-last=Stellman|edition=4th|publisher=International Labour Organization|year=1998|isbn=9789221098164|first=Stewart|last=Forbes|article=Environmental Issues in Metal Finishing and Industrial Coatings}}
  • {{cite encyclopaedia|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of chemical technology|volume=27|editor1-first=Arza|editor1-last=Seidel|edition=5th|publisher=Wiley-Interscience|year=2007|isbn=9780471484967}}
  • Keep. A notable topic. The article is a bit of a how to guide and it needs a huge cleanup but these are not reasons for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is the third article of this type that the nominator has put up for deletion. See other discussions at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water and the environment. All these articles fill a gap in the WP hierarchy of articles. There are a large number of articles of this type. They form a useful continuum for the reader. They form a hierarcy as follows:

Topic -> -> Topic and the environment -> Environmental issues with topic

Environment -> -> Sustainability of topic

:-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 02:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep It was originally called green painting. Its written as a how to guide at the moment, so needs to be rewritten. It needs to quote various sources for the suggest method of reducing the effects of paint on the environment. A possible merge can be discussed after the article has been referenced and written properly. Dream Focus 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

::Can you explain why both this article and Environmental issues with paint are both required? What is the intended difference in scope between these two articles? Seems like a textbook content fork to me. Choose one title and merge them. SnottyWong confabulate 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Read both articles. This one is far longer, and it would look out of place if merged there. Just remain it. Its about reducing environmental impact of painting. Dream Focus 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I have read both articles. They are both about the exact same topic. That one is longer than the other is immaterial. Like I said, pick one to keep and merge them. Doesn't matter if it's this one (the longer one) or the other one. There is absolutely no reason to have two articles on the same topic. It's like having Red and The color red and Human perception of red light all as separate articles. No one is trying to "destroy" information here, so you can calm down. We're just saying: put it all together in one article. SnottyWong gossip 21:01, 31 January 2011 (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.