Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate change denial

Climate change denial (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a POV fork of global warming controversy about a supposed campaign by energy companies to cynically misrepresent "consensus" views on global warming. This is a fundamentally dishonest article, with no proof anywhere in the article that such a conspiracy exists, and the examples are media stories that speculate on politicians motives. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a crystal ball, it does not speculate on peoples motives, it is not a platform to attack critics of Global Warming, and any useful information in this article is already found in the multitude of other articles on Global warming. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. A well-sourced article on a notable topic. I don't think this nomination raises any policy issues that weren't addressed by the previous AfD. Of course there is considerable risk of overlap between material in this article and global warming controversy but that doesn't mean that editors (once made aware of the issue) can't contribute material to the correct article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So if I made an article on another kind of slur name for a kind of person, and could quote the washington post, that makes it ok? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is quite a misstatement of what the article covers. But assuming that you could find as many different independent and highly regarded reliable sources that cover your concept - then it would certainly be notable enough merit its own article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to global warming controversy, clean out the POV problems.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  May i ask what POV problems you believe the article to have? As i can't find any comments on the articles talk page by you to explain what you believe is problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the nominating text, it lists a multitude of problems. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

How about letting the user answer? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep old result - nothing new since last debate William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to ignore my nominating rationale, I don't particularly care what happened in the last debate, I want my concerns discussed and addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - More inappropriate is to not "care" about what happened in the last debate because I, like others here, feel that your concerns are already dealt with there. I find this attitude ungrateful to those who contributed to the last AfD process and it feels like a waste of time for those contributing now. In particular, how is this AfD different from the last one? What has changed? Brusegadi (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose nothing, it appears to be the same issues, but is is appropriate to bring an article back to AFD if there has been no improvement and the issues are serious enough. At least, that is common practice. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The nominators main argument seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And ignores that the article covers a notable concept that is attributed and described by a wide variety of independent and highly regarded reliable sources. It is most certainly not a POV fork of global warming controversy, which covers the political and public debate about global warming. Wikipedia does not take a stand on truth - and this article doesn't either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - I dont see how this AfD is different from the last one. Is there a point to all this? As WMC, keep per last result. Brusegadi (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• To the closer - Please wait until we hear from some other people besides those who basically control the Global Warming topic. If you find that questionable, or not assuming good faith, go edit one of those articles in a way they don't like and see how long it lasts. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The subject of an article defines whether it should remain or not, not the current quality, climate change denial seems like a highly notable topic deserving of its own article to me. Restepc (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as before. Notable concept, sourced to reliable sources. The word "conspiracy" occurs only twice in the article - both cases in literal quotes by opponents of the scientific consensus on global warming, once applied to the consensus position, and once as a straw man. Its not used once to describe opponents of the current scientific position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? I have heard it many times used against people who just don't believe in the "consensus" view, not this use against supposed conspirators against scientists and others. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what yo have heard elsewhere. But in the version of the article you nominated, the word "conspiracy" is never used to describe the deniers/sceptics/opponents/heroes of free enterprise. You did read the article before you nominated it, right? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No I was using that as my own word to summarize what I read. In the media I have read, this term was used to cover all those who did not subscribe with consensus, but if it is a separate term that makes better sense. Ok then, the next logical question is, isn't this all just speculation? Doesn't there have to be proof that such an effort was being made? It seems like there is a lot of innuendo and speculation. And also, thank you for discussing this with me. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear about which term you talk about - "climate change denial" or "conspiracy". You can have a systematic attempt at denial without a conspiracy. Individual actors can act in their own best interest. Exxon does not even have to buy opinions, they can just pick and choose whom they support. In fact, they can even choose to fund both sides ("look, we're neutral"), with the effect that the fringe position is boosted much more that the majority position. Anyways, this misses the point. The article has oodles of reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There is no hard "proof" outside of mathematics, anyways - maybe we are all simulations in an AlienVac 2022. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense... it seems like an article that will have to be very careful to maintain NPOV, and definitely requires more opinions by those who deny it exists, as most of the article currently details those who think it does, but I think you have convinced me that, if carefully NPOV and better balanced with both sides, it could be a good article. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as someone who isn't in "control of the global warming topic." This has been done. It was an overwhelming keep then (though not one I agreed with) and it's going to be an overwhelming keep again. If you have specific issues with content address them at the page itself, not by a frivolous AFD. Oren0 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I supported a merge last time, but as with Oren0 I can't see the point of revisiting this issue.JQ (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the concept is notable. POV would be mixing this up with climate change scepticism - this content fork reduces POV issues in other articles. That is, if deleted the topic would then be covered in other articles making it more likely (not less) that Wikipedia appears to be equating scepticism with denial. Nick Connolly (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nominator Withdraw - I have long been concerned with this articles inherent POV, but Stephan made a convincing argument how this article can be made to be am NPOV, balanced accounting of this somewhat controversial theory. Thank you all for your imput and the helpful discussion that has taken place, this is what AFD is all about, talking out issues. :)Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2008 (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.