- 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 keep. Hey man im josh ( talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peak copper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too soon for this article because peak copper will not happen during the energy transition and that will take decades. See for example
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/19/why-it-is-time-to-retire-dr-copper Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't really understand the nomination rationale here. The
Too soon essay is one that discusses notability, not how far in the future an event is predicted to happen. This article seems to demonstrate notability, with multiple sources discussing the inevitable decline of copper production, and many of them using the exact phrase peak copper. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes perhaps I should have linked to Wikipedia:Fringe theories as a reason rather than "too soon".
- There are very recent few cites in the article which actually say peak copper will occur in the foreseeable future - New Scientist from 2007 is 15 years ago for example. That was before the energy transition really got going. I would be very surprised if a reputable source like New Scientist would predict peak copper nowadays.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
13:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm confused on how this could be interpreted as a fringe theory. The article's content is well-supported by reliable sources, which indicates that the phenomenon of peak copper is at least a credible idea in the scientific community. We cannot delete articles simply because their sources are a few years old, and to claim that a source would or would not make a given argument today seems like original research to me. Even if sources no longer make those same claims, that's not a reason to delete the article, but to expand the existing article to reflect the new scientific consensus. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- If peak copper in the foreseeable future was still credible there would be reliable sources from the 2020s but I very much doubt any of you will be able to find any. I feel this article just confuses readers and distracts them from the real problems with copper supply. As an alternative to deletion how about renaming it to "copper supply" or "copper production"? There are only 2 paragraphs in
Copper#Recycling and even less here but if the article is renamed I would be willing to add a bit more recycling detail here.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
06:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've never really seen moving to a different title proposed as an alternative to deletion, but in any case, that conversation would be had through a
requested move, not here. Also, the
copper extraction article goes into quite a bit of detail about how copper is produced. I don't think that's directly related to this discussion, however, due to the significant difference in topics. An article covering speculation on the economic viability and inevitable depletion of a resource should not necessarily go into detail about how that resource is produced. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
06:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see Copper mining redirects to the copper extraction article you mentioned, but that is historical whereas I suspect people searching for "copper mining" are more likely to be interested in current mining. In contrast gold mining has its own article. As proposed new copper mines are likely to generate a lot of disputes and press coverage this decade we should have a proper article covering mining and recycling so that journalists and environmentalists new to the subject of copper have a neutral point of view introduction. Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've never really seen moving to a different title proposed as an alternative to deletion, but in any case, that conversation would be had through a
requested move, not here. Also, the
copper extraction article goes into quite a bit of detail about how copper is produced. I don't think that's directly related to this discussion, however, due to the significant difference in topics. An article covering speculation on the economic viability and inevitable depletion of a resource should not necessarily go into detail about how that resource is produced. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
06:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- If peak copper in the foreseeable future was still credible there would be reliable sources from the 2020s but I very much doubt any of you will be able to find any. I feel this article just confuses readers and distracts them from the real problems with copper supply. As an alternative to deletion how about renaming it to "copper supply" or "copper production"? There are only 2 paragraphs in
Copper#Recycling and even less here but if the article is renamed I would be willing to add a bit more recycling detail here.
Chidgk1 (
talk)
06:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I'm confused on how this could be interpreted as a fringe theory. The article's content is well-supported by reliable sources, which indicates that the phenomenon of peak copper is at least a credible idea in the scientific community. We cannot delete articles simply because their sources are a few years old, and to claim that a source would or would not make a given argument today seems like original research to me. Even if sources no longer make those same claims, that's not a reason to delete the article, but to expand the existing article to reflect the new scientific consensus. —
TechnoSquirrel69 (
sigh)
14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per TechnoSquirrel69. The timing of the forecast event is irrelevant for notability. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- keep is well sourced, and discussed in various journals. TOOSOON wouldn't seem to apply, as this discusses what will happen with much analysis given. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; the article has sources and it seems like an obviously notable topic. We have an article on the
heat death of the Universe; that's not what
WP:TOOSOON means.
jp×
g
🗯️
22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is certain to occur, whereas peak copper is not certain to occur, as copper could be mined from asteroids if demand is such that it becomes economical to do so Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:21, 12 November 2023 (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.