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. Will userfy to be worked on further if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computers and the environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A needless content fork of Electronics and the environment, also has almost no information or cited links Yaksar (let's chat) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A notable topic that needs expanding rather than deleting. It is not a content fork of Electronics and the environment but rather a subset of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Alan's many "xxxx and the environment" articles have created a lot of unnecessary confusion and duplication, and I'm pleased that some have already been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sparse content in the article can be merged into Electronics and the environment --papageno (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can see issues concerning environmental-friendly usage of computers in data centers, etc., but until there is significant content in Electronics and the environment I don't see why this shouldn't be placed there. Also, how is the latter article going to differ from Electronic waste? Nageh (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom., unless it can be promptly expanded with reliably sourced content. If such expansion is forthcoming, than it should be moved to a sandbox until it is complete enough to be placed in namespace.--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (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.