Draft talk:International non-use agreement on solar geoengineering

Unreliable sources?

I came across this draft page accidentally when I had put Frank Biermann into the search field. On first glance, I think the article looks quite good already. Doesn't it already have quite a few reliable sources? What's wrong with the sources so far, what else does it need? Or maybe the topic is not notable enough? Pinging User:Chidgk1 and User:1HumbleB. EMsmile (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

No objection to sources but I think this should be part of SRM article as it would not make it too large Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Climatechangevulture:suggest you just copy it into that article Chidgk1 (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about that option because if the article was copied in its entirety to solar radiation modification it would not meet WP:DUE, right? I.e. too much detail on this non-use agreement. I also wonder if the section on "Publication controversy" is overly detailed and possibly constitutes WP:OR. For a stand-alone article it might be OK to have it but within the SRM article it would be too detailed, wouldn't it? EMsmile (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've now integrated they key points from this article into the solar radiation modification where I've created a new sub-heading for this non-use agreement. I'll now set up a redirect from International non-use agreement on solar geoengineering to solar radiation modification. EMsmile (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)