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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental inequality in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the author of this article. There has been feedback from other editors suggesting that the article should be deleted. My position on deletion of this article is neutral (I will abstain from voting). The reason for proposing this article for deletion is so that a consensus can be determined over whether or not this article should be on Wikipedia. The main concerns are that the article is not neutral (WP:NPOV); that it is written like a personal reflection or essay (WP:FORUM); that it contains mostly original research (WP:SYNTH); that most of the sources are unreliable; that it is a coatrack article (WP:COAT); that the article is too long; and that the article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:N).

This nomination is not intended as a distraction from the article talk page or to WP:POINT. As stated above, my official position is neutral. This nomination was put forward in consideration of sustained, detailed, and well-articulated feedback expressing an unambiguous position that this article was fundamentally flawed for the reasons stated above, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. In consideration of the lengthy and rigorous discussions that took place on the article's talk page between multiple users, nomination for deletion is a constructive and logical means of determining whether or not this article should exist.

Please note that this article has seen changes in content over the past 30 days (since June 1st), including a title change and changes to the lead section. For further information, see edit history. Sturgeontransformer (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Sturgeontransformer (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. A monumental endeavor with 182 inline cites. There is nowhere else in Wikipedia that a user can visit to find a venue for collected research on this topic and its many related subtopics. A "See also" listing at the bottom of the article suggests related Wikipedia entries, such as Environmental racism, Racism in Europe or Social inequality, but none of those covers the same territory as this article.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 06:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD is dripping with WP:POINTyness. It seems designed to avoid discussion on the TP. Kleuske (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A cursory BEFORE shows that this article is discussed as a topic (e.g. google books search) and meets WP:GNG. The article has a number of contributors, so it is ineligible for WP:G7, making the author request irrelevant. The article itself may contain SYNTH, RS, NPOV, or COAT problems - however deletion is not cleanup and it does not seem beyond redemption at the TNT level.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for the reasons cited by Roman Spinner and Icewhiz. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per SYNTH, RS, NPOV, and COAT as Icewhiz says. Furthermore, the nomination by the very author of the essay is as WP:POINTy as it gets. Clearly the bias on this one runs deep and the article cannot reasonably be cleaned up. I mean, look at the "Germany" section, for example. Consider this rambling paragraph, which is nearly half of the section:

 The systematic targeting and genocide of Romani and Sinti communities in Germany during the Holocaust was not officially recognized until 1982. Despite having a recorded presence in German-speaking territories since 1419, many Romani and Sinti were denied or stripped of citizenship following the war. In absence of comprehensive reparation or conciliation processes, Romani and Sinti in Germany have experienced ongoing violence, harassment, and marginalization within a broader context of environmental discrimination.

Seriously? The essayist WP:COATtracked the National Socialist Holocaust, through which the National Socialists killed about half the Gypsies of Europe, into an article ostensibly about "the environment". Look, I think we all can agree the Holocaust was a horrible thing and a genocide of the Gypsies, but the fact it got dragged into this article goes to show the whole essay is a hopeless mess of WP:SYNTH and needs be nuked from orbit. XavierItzm (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If I read the part about Ireland, it is hopelessly focused on Travelers. Beside that, it concerns for a large part of social problems, not environmental. If there is housing/halting sites provided, they are always located out of town or on the very fringes. Never in the towns itself. But that is not even mentioned in the article. The Banner talk 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete page as it is an odd synthesis of material. Much of the material is possibly notable and could be included on the various country or city pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have to agree that this looks like a WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH issue. A lot of sources, but not the level of secondary coverage about the topic as a whole needed. Most of this seems to be focused on people with tangential mention to the environment too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to tack on that after Sturgeontransformer's recent changes were reverted, I'm still of the same opinion that the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We need secondary sources really digging into the term environmental inequality for Europe, and I'm not really seeing that level. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the only argument I see for deletion is WP:TNT, but the article is so bad I think that's reasonable here. WP:COATRACK is an accurate summary and Sturgeontransformer appears to have no interest in letting other users edit this; a better solution may be to ban them from editing on this topic (IDK if there are discretionary sanctions or it has to go to ANI). Some of the sections should be their own articles, others are POV-pushing trivia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted all of Sturgeontransformer's recent changes to this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Split - the article is way too long, and but the individual sections are very well-sourced and could be developed into articles of their own (with any content violating WP:SYNTH removed). --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my comment, I hold that the concerns on the talk page must be fully addressed to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, but I do not believe that deletion is the right way to do it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Invited by the bot to the RFC there. This is basically a soapbox essay; even the topic is synthesized rather than being a distinct topic under the normal Wikipedia standards. In this context, the sourcing is actually coatracking. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - there is already an article on Environmental inequality in the United Kingdom. Vorbee (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Possibly, this article called "Environmental inequality in Europe" could be renamed as "Environmental Racism in Europe", as that is what the article seems to be about. Vorbee (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is a coatrack, and the applicable deletion reason is Deletion reason 5, content forks, a place to fork off criticisms of environmental, racial, and economic policy. Also, the article has been a conflict magnet since its inception, and the status of an article as a conflict magnet tends to indicate that the article isn't robust. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly should not be deleted, though there may be issues. The subject is undoubtedly notable. One must suspect the motives of some of the opposition to it. A rename including "minority groups" or something might help. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2018 (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.