Household energy insecurity : There is some good work here.   However.  the titled term is a multi-word specialized neologism not mentioned in the references for topics covered elsewhere.  I.E. no indication of wp:notability for the topic.  Suggest finding an article with a wp:notable  topic to move this material into and thanking the editor for their work in creating this.  North8000 ( talk ) 01:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello, original editor here.  Agreed that this page needs more work but this is an emerging term covered (and even defined for readers in-article) in many mainstream news articles as of late: Reuters , Yahoo , and Forbes , covering it as a topic recently highlighted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration .  Regarding the title length, "Household" was added to distinguish it from national-level energy security .  This topic mirrors food security , but for energy/electricity.  If the content is to be integrated into another article, I recommend something like energy poverty (though this concept doesn't fully capture the affordability aspect once people have access to modern energy sources) or Household energy use (though this page is even more sparse), or another concept/name such as energy cost burden.  (some more context: as an academic part of the Wiki Scientists climate program I had some mentorship on this first article of mine)  Thanks so much for your help!  BusyBee03 ( talk ) 01:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Economics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep as per the sources provided by BusyBee03.   However, since none of those sources use the specific term "household energy insecurity" as far as I could see, maybe a change of title to "Energy insecurity (household)" or "...(individual)" might be a good idea.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 14:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I generally advocate a slightly looser standard than looking for an exact match on the title.  If it's a distinct area covered as such by sources (including GNG type coverage in 1-2 sources) IMO that is enough, but IMO I don't see where this meets even that looser standard.  When someone doesn't have the money to buy the important items, they either don't have them or are at risk of not having whichever ones they decide to not get/pay, which can be any one of dozens of items, including any of 2-4 different energy sources or the diverse specific needs that require those energy sources (heating, air conditioning, transportation, communication, cooking, bathing, learning, internet, information, telephone,  lighting, water (if on a well) etc. )  Wiki technicalities aside, I just don't see where it is a distinct topic to make an informative article on.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I see the title as a phrase describing the topic of the article, rather than a "name" of something and certainly not as a neologism.  It seems fine to me and the topic should not be regarded as lacking notability on account of the title.  "Energy (in)security" is used in the titles of two references in relation to households and another reference's title includes "energy insecure households".  Wikipedia tends to lack articles on topics compared with articles on "things" (especially people).  The others commenting here seem to appreciate the article's contents and so do I. Thincat ( talk ) 09:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not advocating anything, just trying to help sort this out.    My last post already agreed with you regarding not needing coverage by the name in the title.  My argument is more that it is not a distinct topic.    If somebody does not have enough money.... lets say that 20 of the 30 necessities require one of the ~4 forms of energy that they purchase.  What is the distinct topic, and is there coverage of it?       Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 14:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The arguments made by others above emphasize that some coverage of this should be attempted.  It has the issues that I described above but maybe this could develop into a useful article, including exploring those complexities.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:39, 26 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep