- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. Drmies ( talk) 14:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Sustainable Development Goal 9
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sustainable Development Goal 9 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been redirected before, with reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Development Goal 3 (by User:Jake Brockman), but it has been revamped. But what applied in that AfD applies here as well: "Reads more like a report than an encyclopaedia article". This is indeed a report, lacking secondary sourcing (there was some material with secondary sourcing synthesized into the article, which I removed). The sourcing, in a nutshell, is all programmatic and relies on primary references, and never gets away from a highly detailed summary of the goals set by the UN.
I thought this was maybe part of a school project, but now I see that it's this, Wikipedia:Meetup/Online edit-a-thon SDGs September 2020--the net effect seems to be the creation of a walled garden of sub-articles pertaining to the already inflated Sustainable Development Goals. I have no objection to someone bundling the other SDG sub-articles into this. Drmies ( talk) 14:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep for sure. this has already been discussed so many times, I am getting quite tired of it! There are 17 SDGs and they each deserve their own article. Some of them might not yet be perfect but we are working on that this week as part of the mentioned edit-a-thon. Rather help with improving the articles and finding more references than complaining that it's not good enough. Why is
Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden? Do we really have to have the same discussion over and over again. See
here and
here.
EMsmile (
talk)
15:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
-
EMsmile, what are you trying to point at? There is no agreement on that talk page in the one section and, at any rate, it's hardly an RfC or an AfD discussion, and the second one is just a section where
Sphilbrick is explaining copyright to you. That you are tired of it is not my concern: my concern is that we write articles that are notable by our standards, and that means that they have reliable secondary sources to prove they should have an article. I cannot tell from your comments here or on that talk page that you understand how notability works here--and you are certainly not providing any evidence for notability here.
Drmies (
talk)
16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You didn't respond to my questions: "Why is
Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden?". From that it seems to me that you are saying the SDGs are not notable? And I think I understand quite well what makes a topic notable or not for Wikipedia. Those places that I linked to were indeed not AfDs but to me they were good enough because consensus was achieved. Some of the SDG articles have already been around for many years. E.g. do you also want to propose to delete
SDG 6? You talked about "bundling other SDG sub-articles into this". Which ones? All 17?
EMsmile (
talk)
16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- And I do agree that the SDG 9 article is weak. I had a quick look at the state of the other 16 after one week of online edit-a-thon and the SDG 9 one is probably the weakest. So an "improve" tag is definitely in order. But what worries me is that you seem to make a blanket statement saying that you don't like any of the other SDG articles and that you don't think improvement is possible and the only possible solution is deletion. Or did I misunderstand? Would you want to delete as well
SDG 6,
SDG 1,
SDG 13 etc.? And what don't you like about the
SDG article? You are finding it too long? That's why we need the sub-articles, otherwise it would be much longer still. If you have a problem with the SDG article, I suggest you put it on the talk page there so that we can improve it. Your statement of "already inflated" worries me.
EMsmile (
talk)
16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- EMsmile, there was no consensus for anything relevant to this discussion in the links you pointed at. The walled garden here is used to indicate that we have a large amount of articles linked to each other and edited by the same group of editors, all of which contain loads and loads of information that is, no doubt, also found on the organizational website, in addition to huge chunks of irrelevant material whose only purpose seems to be either a. an exercise in essay writing (original research) or b. fluffing up the reflist with truly secondary sources. Sadads, one wonders why the sourcing across those articles can be so bad if there are so many editors working on them; typically that's a sign of COI. How many links to sdg.tracker.org can one article have? But I see that your "strong keep" is quickly parroted, so indeed it's pretty pointless here (though you're the only one to present a valid reason) and I'll close this myself. Drmies ( talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- And I do agree that the SDG 9 article is weak. I had a quick look at the state of the other 16 after one week of online edit-a-thon and the SDG 9 one is probably the weakest. So an "improve" tag is definitely in order. But what worries me is that you seem to make a blanket statement saying that you don't like any of the other SDG articles and that you don't think improvement is possible and the only possible solution is deletion. Or did I misunderstand? Would you want to delete as well
SDG 6,
SDG 1,
SDG 13 etc.? And what don't you like about the
SDG article? You are finding it too long? That's why we need the sub-articles, otherwise it would be much longer still. If you have a problem with the SDG article, I suggest you put it on the talk page there so that we can improve it. Your statement of "already inflated" worries me.
EMsmile (
talk)
16:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- You didn't respond to my questions: "Why is
Sustainable Development Goals inflated in your view?? What is a walled garden?". From that it seems to me that you are saying the SDGs are not notable? And I think I understand quite well what makes a topic notable or not for Wikipedia. Those places that I linked to were indeed not AfDs but to me they were good enough because consensus was achieved. Some of the SDG articles have already been around for many years. E.g. do you also want to propose to delete
SDG 6? You talked about "bundling other SDG sub-articles into this". Which ones? All 17?
EMsmile (
talk)
16:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
-
EMsmile, what are you trying to point at? There is no agreement on that talk page in the one section and, at any rate, it's hardly an RfC or an AfD discussion, and the second one is just a section where
Sphilbrick is explaining copyright to you. That you are tired of it is not my concern: my concern is that we write articles that are notable by our standards, and that means that they have reliable secondary sources to prove they should have an article. I cannot tell from your comments here or on that talk page that you understand how notability works here--and you are certainly not providing any evidence for notability here.
Drmies (
talk)
16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep -- these are the organizing principles for the entire UN System and International Development community -- they are also central filters by which almost all of the scholarship, evaluation and research on the impact of international development is being measured -- without any search for sources and a very basic "will they be a subject of extensive study", they are going to be notable -- not to mention that you get hundreds of results for each in sources like Google Scholar. Sadads ( talk) 18:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer and there is sufficient amount of reliable sources to support it. And the objection to the article's style, albeit valid, should be a starting point for improvements rather than deletion. This discussion is essentially groundless.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 21:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep The SDG's are here to stay. The SDG's are the future of our planet. As per above, The notability of SDGs is a no-brainer -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep These 17 global goals have been in place for five years. I would say we are overdue in making more information on each of them available to general readers. That it would take a while to improve the quality is normal, and having a page on Wikipedia will invite more experts to build the quality.
PlanetCare (
talk)
13:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Or you could write it according to our guidelines in the first place. Drmies ( talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (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.