Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate alarmism

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 merge and redirect to Global Warming. I'll go ahead and redirect, if anybody wants to do the merge work, the history will be there for you (and many thanks, by the way!). Luna Santin 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate alarmism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

contested prod. title is inherently POV; an NPOV article can't be written with this title. Merge anything worth saving into Global Warming Geoffrey Spear 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until the results of all scientific studies on this article's notability are in. Until then, we should take no rash action. --Dhartung | Talk 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Global warming. We do not need a separate article for every story on every TV news program about global warming. This has its only source a single such BBC story. Edison 00:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral But if you delete it before I can provide enough additional sources to show the concept's notability, then please Userfy it for me. Or at least give me enough notice so I can userfy it my self to User:Ed Poor/climate alarmism. Thanks! :-) --Uncle Ed 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, POV neologism. I think the argument made is roughly valid (in the sense that I see where they are coming from, not that I agree with them) but it is probably best to integrate it into the main article on the controversy, Wikipedia sucks when each POV has its own article. --70.51.228.137 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete:pov or not, it's a neologism and an article about a scientific topic that only sources popular media (in fact it seems to be mostly based on one bbc story). -- frymaster 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Delete.

Comments:

1. I've added 2 quotes to the article, so it is no longer "mostly based on one BBC story".
2. The title is unacceptably POV; something like "Politics of Climate Change" would be better.
3. The article is currently too one-sided (and I made it even worse).
4. Global Warming is the wrong place to merge this. Global Warming controversy would be more appropriate.
5. The debate on whether Climate Change has been oversold will, IMO, grow in importance. I suspect we'll end up having a separate article on the topic within a year or two even if we merge it now.

If we keep this article, we must rename it and make it more balanced. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• possible keep, conditional on something like my new intro surviving :-) William M. Connolley 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC) delete It didn't survive - this page doomed to be yet another in the long series of proxy wars William M. Connolley 15:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The blatantly POV material WMC added to the article is now back in a less POV form. CWC(talk) 11:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete Similar material is spread across too many different articles -- Global warming, Scientific opinion on climate change, List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, Global warming controversy, etc etc. The (very little) material in this article that does not already appear elsewhere should be merged into one of those articles. Raymond Arritt 19:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge any surviving content per WP:POVFORK. This article seems to be a classic example of what the POVFORK guideline is designed to protect against. Global warming controversy seems to be the right place. --Shirahadasha 19:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK. Addhoc 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since everyone wants to delete or merge, is it okay if I Wikipedia:userfy the page now? --Uncle Ed 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object, as long it includes a conspicuous notice that this is your personal work and does not represent the Wikipedia community. Raymond Arritt 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Global Warming, POV fork. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:08, 31 January 2007 (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.