Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000s energy crisis

2000s energy crisis

2000s energy crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No reliable sources found. The current crisis (Subprime mortgage crisis is documented with a large number of related articles ; it does not refer to energy crisis, nor hints there might be one.Environnement2100 (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. There appears to be pleanty of reliable sources. Dale 11:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a large number of sources ; none of them is related to "2000s energy crisis". Please review the current 98 references, most concern the price of oil evolution, not an "energy crisis".--Environnement2100 (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The title 'energy crisis' might not perfectly convey the topic, but the dramatic changes in oil prices in this decade are notable and on first glance appear accurately portrayed with adequate references. Shanata (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"might not fit perfectly" is understatement for "is not suited" ? You seem to know about science Shanata, and you probably know that "energy" is not equal to "oil", and "crisis" is not equal to "price raise".--Environnement2100 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The article contains a lot of well sourced, interesting information. However, I strongly believe the article is poorly named, and that it should have something like its original title: Oil price increase between 2003 and 2008. This is because, as I see it, "crisis" is a point of view and the "crisis" (if we are to call it that) was confined to petroleum rather than "energy at large" (ie there was no price spike of coal, natural gas etc). I think it was rushed to rename without consensus based on a few articles an editor found calling it an "energy crisis", and because they were in "reliable sources" standing behind that and saying it was an unassailable position. See the article's talk page for further bickering on the matter. TastyCakes (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per TastyCakes. If the title of a well-written article is incorrect, you could correct the title, not delete the article. Beagel (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Anyone who's ever paid $4 for a gallon of gasoline in the US is aware of the "Energy Crisis'. rename if it makes you feel better. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Europeans pay *much* more than that, and have been for decades. So we are back to "Gasoline price crisis in the US"--Environnement2100 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep A really important article about one of the major economic issues of the decade, and likely of the future. I am open to renaming. Gruntler (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Natural gas and coal prices rose dramatically along with oil during this time period so it's not inaccurate to refer to the "energy crisis." Increasing coverage of these topics is an alternative to renaming. Gruntler (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no references to coal nor natural gas in the article.--Environnement2100 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I don't think coal, in particular, rose anywhere near as much. TastyCakes (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Coal prices took off in 2004 and are currently 3-4 times as high as they were in 2000. , Gruntler (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess that should be mentioned in the article too. TastyCakes (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting : why is there no mention of "coal crisis" in the article then ? The point is, if there is (or was) one, it should be in the article, not in your defense for the article. Your first link leads to "Metallurgical Coal" which is a special case. When you ask EIA/DoE, it says coal went from $35 to 69 between 2000 and 2008. Factor in dollar devaluation.--Environnement2100 (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your link is about "steam coal" and shows the price quadrupling in many important countries. but anyway, the doubling in the US is quite significant (25% cumulative inflation since 2000 aside).

My point is that something about the "energy crisis" ought to include coverage of coal (and natural gas too, its price was doing some pretty crazy stuff as well , and consequently electricity too). If that's not going to get added anytime soon, then the article should be renamed. But if it *is* going to get added, the title is fine. Which should happen is really up to that page's editors and what their plans are.

Certainly there *ought to be* coverage of the 2000s natural gas and coal price fluctuations in Wikipedia and it's a shame that no one has yet written those articles (beyond a small amount of coverage at the articles on coal and natural gas prices). Then we could merge them all and have an awesome energy crisis article. But that is obviously beyond what this AfD can accomplish. Gruntler (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think an article (called something like "energy cost increases from 2003 to 2008") that covers the price increase of various forms of energy during that time would be good. TastyCakes (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See this one The Price of Coal and see how terrified and/or interested people are in the "coal crisis". This article has been sitting there for quite some time and absolutely no information has been added in the range of coal, gas, electricity, hydroelectricity, etc. I hope you understand nobody ever will now.--Environnement2100 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Why wouldn't people add to an article that includes the increase in the price of coal? TastyCakes (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been created in 2004 ; some 3000 edits since, most of them in 2008. Since 2004, people have had so much time to include edits concerning coal crisis, if there ever was one. Now coal is headed down, I do not suppose anyone will care more. Also, most edits were done during 2008 : this article was spurred by sensationalism. Now the economic crisis kicks in, the high sensations are gone, obviously this article intersts noone, be it oil, coal or whatever energy source. Realize that the numerous forward-looking statements/refs in the article, turning up wrong now, are maintained by noone either.--Environnement2100 (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The first lines of the article state : (quote)This article is about the causes and analysis of the relatively high oil prices of the 2000s. For discussion of the effects of the crisis, see Effects of 2000s energy crisis. For a chronology of oil prices during this time, see 2003 to 2008 world oil market chronology. (Unquote) : obviously no reference to energy is wanted.-Environnement2100 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree. A large number of edits does not necessarily indicate that the article is a good one, or that it has been properly organised, or that the subject is exhaustively covered. In the case of including coal and other energy sources in the article this is especially so, since the article was named "Oil price increase since 2003" until the end of 2008. Further, I disagree entirely that "no one cares"; I think there are many people that are interested in energy prices in general over the period. Your claim that "no reference to energy is wanted" is bizarre - articles are written by editors such as ourselves. If it's decided that an article's subject includes another so far neglected area (in discussions such as this), it is a simple matter of inserting it. The goal should be to have a good article - not to delete things we don't think people care about enough. You say the article was written during a period of sensationalism, and to an extent I would agree. But all that indicates to me is that we should go through the article and apply proper, non-passionate, encyclopedic language with the benefit of hindsight.

You are very gung-ho about deleting the article entirely and to hell with anyone that found it useful. My stance remains that it is an article with useful, notable information and has every reason to remain, although (as with most articles) there are many areas on which it could improve. TastyCakes (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2009 (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.