Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming skeptic

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] global warming skeptic

Article a dicdef and not otherwise encyclopedic either. Delete or redirect to Global_warming_controversy? Squidwina 22:08, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - It's a bad dictionary definition with no encyclopedic content. — Cortonin | Talk 00:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not redirect; anyone looking for anything like this is not going to type in this exact phrase. They will follow links from Global warming or use a text search. One of the things I dislike about Wikipedia is that it's very hard to find older relevant VfD's if an article is created under even a slightly differen title. I am 95% sure that a very similar article was voted for deletion some months ago but I can't find the relevant discussion. Anyway... even if this were a weren't a dicdef it would be a point-of-view breakout. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 22:13, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You may be thinking of (the sadly not late) consensus science, perhaps?
• Keep. The page is totally POV, in that the competing viewpoints on GW skeptics are nicely laid out for all to see, and you can choose which you prefer.
  • And the encyclopedic value of that is?? — Cortonin | Talk 23:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 09:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Its a useful exposition of the opinions of the two sides.
• Delete. Any useful information on this subject can be included in Global warming. Carrp | Talk 23:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • GW is currently 55k. The last thing it needs is more added to it (William M. Connolley 09:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
• Delete. Dicdef and a dumb one at that. The meaning of the term is apparent to anybody who understands the word skeptic. The article seems to have no other purpose than to provide a pretext for a bit of editorializing. --BM 17:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-evident definition of the term. I can see no way to expand this article. Any discussion of the criticisms of Global Warming should be discussed in that context, not under this title. There are better ways to resolve the problems of the size fo the main article. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.