602:, too much original research. list includes any author who the creators have found to have written a book which touches on any environmental subject, thus we have authors who are primary SF, like asimov, included for having 1 book (though it may be a good one). the inclusion criteria are too vague. would you include an author who wrote one essay on the subject, or wrote a testimonial for greenpeace, but was not the author of a scholarly work?. also, the term "environmental writer" means "environmentalist writer". this list includes books by Anti-environmentalists as well, like glenn beck. thats like have a list of christian writers which includes anti christian writers. having a typical book for each author is also original research. I also feel that this list is not truly useful to readers, per Liefting. I dont think it works as a parallel guide to a category.
661:
unclear on that point (though with "non-fiction" also in the title, I don't see how it could be; "I am a non-fiction environmentalist" makes zero sense), a rename can be discussed on the article's talk page after this AFD closes. Likewise, if there is consensus not to include people for one-off books about environmental issues (such as Asimov or Beck), such inclusion criteria are to be determined on the talk page in the first instance. At minimum, it's simply not credible that none of the writers listed should be included, as there are indisputably writers who are defined by their work on this topic (such as
479:, a standard and sensible index of articles on a discrete and notable topic, which complements the category system for navigation and provides further information in annotations. AL has made it clear that he does not like lists, but it should also be clear to him that his understanding of relevant standards in this area is idiosyncratic and not reflective of community consensus by a long shot. Continuing to nevertheless make such deletion nominations tends towards being disruptive and POINTy rather than constructive.
665:). As for the "typical book" column being OR, I don't quite get that claim. The titles are obviously verifiably written by these authors, and choosing one to represent their work in this area is in my view no more problematic than the editorial decision of what select works should be named in a biography's lede out of the writer's larger bibliography. Again, that's an issue for talk page discussion and not relevant to deletion here even if the consensus were to rename that column or remove it entirely.
501:
It is not true that I do not like lists. I create them and I promote them, but if they are of no use I ask for them to be deleted. And please assume good faith. A difference in our judgements on what articles should be included in WP is no reason to make the bold claim that I am out of step with the
660:
I'd also disagree further with the equating of this list to "environmentalist writers", which would be about the writer's identity, not the content of their works; the entries of this list clearly show that it is targeting writers by what they write about. If there is a consensus that the title is
203:, and because the actual topic, from which the list strays, can be handled by a category. WP editors seem to have a fixation for lists of all sorts regardless of whether they are of use to readers. An article relating to the topic with actual prose may also be an idea. --
566:: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative."
164:
683:
All this is why I suggested an actual article with actual prose. A category and a list {to a lesser degree) cannot give any indication of "scale". Asimov is in a completely different "category" to, say, Paul Hawken. --
92:
87:
96:
79:
584:
A valid list per WP policy. If you think this topic additionally merits an actual prose article, write one, but don't delete it just because an article is theoretically possible - where is the logic in that?
158:
408:
124:
83:
362:
and remove unnecessary statements. A list would allow for a presentation of this idea, and in order to meet this end, yes, prose should be added, but the list kept and revised.
225:
119:
617:
621:
75:
67:
179:
146:
722:
697:
678:
655:
637:
611:
594:
574:
548:
515:
492:
467:
445:
422:
399:
373:
346:
305:
275:
241:
216:
61:
140:
136:
186:
693:
651:
511:
463:
395:
301:
237:
212:
251:
stray from the topic, and, secondly, the extra information in the other columns and the sortable wikitable are both features that can
17:
152:
289:
369:
713:– lists are useful navigational tools, often easier to use than categories. Perhaps it needs rebuilt, but deleted? Nope.
741:
40:
607:
386:? Is it worth maintaining until the end of civilisation as we know it? I would answer with a resounding "NO". --
441:
689:
647:
590:
507:
459:
391:
297:
233:
208:
718:
200:
737:
569:
36:
603:
544:
342:
292:
page is higher than I would expect but it is not comparable. Also, is that a test for notability? --
271:
383:
437:
172:
563:
685:
643:
586:
503:
455:
387:
293:
229:
204:
256:
714:
673:
632:
487:
418:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
736:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
57:
532:
list that you have started, and what desirable feature(s) does it have that this list does
433:
540:
338:
267:
642:
The same would apply to the category but that is not what is being discussed here. --
662:
667:
626:
481:
414:
113:
363:
53:
529:
334:
is more accurate than calling it a list. The statistics indicate interest.
288:
THere are six columns. A list is a single column. The stats for the
730:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
331:
327:
109:
105:
101:
454:
An I am saying that we should favour actual prose. --
171:
562:- A discriminate list of notable writers. See also:
409:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
618:
Category:American non-fiction environmental writers
436:tells us not to delete lists to favour categories.
185:
622:List of American non-fiction environmental writers
76:List of American non-fiction environmental writers
68:List of American non-fiction environmental writers
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
744:). No further edits should be made to this page.
226:list of Environment-related deletion discussions
8:
407:Note: This debate has been included in the
330:, although it seems to me that calling it a
224:Note: This debate has been included in the
406:
223:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
370:essay on the definition of consensus
24:
255:be handled by a category. Also,
290:List_of_environmental_lawsuits
247:On the contrary, the list does
502:community or being POINTy. --
1:
620:is not irredeemable OR, but
761:
723:02:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
698:19:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
679:14:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
656:06:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
638:02:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
612:02:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
595:13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
575:03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
549:15:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
516:20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
493:18:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
468:20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
446:09:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
423:02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
400:01:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
374:01:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
347:05:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
306:04:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
276:02:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
242:01:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
217:01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
62:17:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
733:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
199:per the sentiments of
326:have the format of a
259:show that some lists
382:But is it useful to
322:Apparently, a list
328:sortable wikitable
263:useful to readers.
48:The result was
573:
425:
412:
244:
752:
735:
572:
570:Northamerica1000
567:
413:
366:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
34:
760:
759:
755:
754:
753:
751:
750:
749:
748:
742:deletion review
731:
616:How is it that
604:Mercurywoodrose
568:
372:
364:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
758:
756:
747:
746:
726:
725:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
597:
578:
577:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
537:
521:
520:
519:
518:
496:
495:
473:
472:
471:
470:
449:
448:
427:
426:
404:
403:
402:
377:
376:
368:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
335:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
281:
280:
279:
278:
264:
220:
219:
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
757:
745:
743:
739:
734:
728:
727:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:Alan Liefting
682:
681:
680:
676:
675:
670:
669:
664:
663:Rachel Carson
659:
658:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:Alan Liefting
641:
640:
639:
635:
634:
629:
628:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
592:
588:
587:Colapeninsula
583:
580:
579:
576:
571:
565:
561:
558:
557:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:Alan Liefting
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
489:
484:
483:
478:
475:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:Alan Liefting
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
429:
428:
424:
420:
416:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:Alan Liefting
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
371:
367:
361:
358:
357:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:Alan Liefting
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:Alan Liefting
227:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
205:Alan Liefting
202:
198:
195:
194:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
732:
729:
715:Marikafragen
710:
672:
666:
631:
625:
599:
581:
559:
533:
528:What is one
486:
480:
476:
430:
359:
323:
260:
252:
248:
201:WP:LISTCRUFT
196:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
159:free images
541:Wavelength
339:Wavelength
268:Wavelength
257:statistics
738:talk page
564:WP:NOTDUP
530:exemplary
415:• Gene93k
37:talk page
740:or in a
694:contribs
652:contribs
512:contribs
464:contribs
396:contribs
302:contribs
238:contribs
213:contribs
120:View log
39:or in a
668:postdlf
627:postdlf
482:postdlf
384:readers
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
600:Delete
438:Warden
434:WP:CLS
365:Wer900
197:Delete
137:Google
97:delete
54:JohnCD
536:have?
332:table
228:. --
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
719:talk
711:Keep
690:talk
674:talk
648:talk
633:talk
624:is?
608:talk
591:talk
582:Keep
560:Keep
545:talk
508:talk
488:talk
477:Keep
460:talk
442:talk
431:Keep
419:talk
392:talk
360:Keep
343:talk
298:talk
272:talk
234:talk
209:talk
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
534:not
324:can
261:are
253:not
249:not
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
721:)
696:)
692:-
677:)
654:)
650:-
636:)
610:)
593:)
585:--
547:)
514:)
510:-
491:)
466:)
462:-
444:)
421:)
411:.
398:)
394:-
345:)
304:)
300:-
274:)
240:)
236:-
215:)
211:-
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
717:(
688:(
671:(
646:(
630:(
606:(
589:(
543:(
539:—
506:(
485:(
458:(
440:(
417:(
390:(
341:(
337:—
296:(
270:(
266:—
232:(
207:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.