Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green steel in Ukraine

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green steel in Ukraine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I think it is effectively a whitepaper and it is entirely unencyclopeadic. Unless whitepapers are acceptable articles. It takes a position, then tries to prove it. For example The European Green Deal is a plan so it's set in the future, again similar to a white paper, setting out a position. As it doesn't read correctly, it would need a fairly drastic rewrite, if it was acceptable. The only section that is in the present, is the History of adoption, but even that strays. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently wondered aloud if we had an article on green steel. Reducing the emissions of the steel industry is one of the most difficult issues in climate change mitigation, both for technical reasons and because writing good policy is hard: Jurisdictions often don't want to apply carbon taxes to the steel industry because it would make their domestic steel production less competitive internationally. This article is about how an industry is changing, mostly in response to a policy initiative. Whether this policy initiative is a "plan" is irrelevant - the policy is already having an effect by sending signals to markets. We need a hell of a lot more articles that illuminate how climate policy works, not fewer articles. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on green steel, it is the production and financialisation of green steel in Ukraine. Have you read it? There is barely any mention of it. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you mind laying off comments like "Have you read it?". This kind of comment comes across as snarky and doesn't help anyone better-understand your argument for deletion. You seem to think that that the focus on the EU Green Deal causes the article to be set in the future. I provided background on what green steel is in order to explain why this is not the case. BTW I'm also not understanding why "only one section is set in the present" is a policy-based argument for deletion so if you can elaborate on how that comment relates to policies and guidelines that would be great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Clayoquot: you yourself wrote it, that makes a lot of sense. Here is some examples of how badly it reads:

Accordingly, it is the only mechanism available today for modernizing steel production to meet environmental goals.
The European Green Deal is a plan to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions
Germany is already introducing a green steel financing program
This law contains a number of norms that introduce
The establishment of the tariff for green steel enterprises program has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Economic Development
Theoretically
Not a single metal plant has yet received the status of "green steel,

That seems to be a call to action, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. They're is no theory on here and there is no planning being done. It has no place on Wikipedia. Words or phrases like norms, sanctioned, plan to achieve are indicative of somebody who writes whitepapers. They are not wikipedia language. I used to write whitepapers, so I recognised it immediately. I would suggest rewriting it, so it meet the Heymann standard. scope_creep^Talk 18:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yeah, it comes across as a position paper, not something descriptive. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unencyclopedic in its current form. I will admit I didn't know what a whitepaper was, but through checking it sounds like it definitely fits this article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 19:31, 29 November 2021 (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.