Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother Earthism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mother Earthism
A recent (October 2005) neologism designed purely to disparage those concerned with global warming does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Two minor Oct 2005 asides and a reprint of [1] in the "Geelong Advertiser" completes LexisNexis hits. The originator is not notable enough to have his own page (yet), otherwise this could be redirected there. Rd232 talk 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Some Google hits including an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Bob Carter see [2] While I agree with what he is saying, he hasn't yet become common usage so that we can have an article about it. Regretfully, I vote Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep a verifiable alternative view to the prominent views put forward by Tim Flannery; it is not merely diparaging those concerned with global warming. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- What does Tim Flannery have to do with this? And how is it an "alternate view" when it is merely a disparaging term for existing views, as the article itself admits ("'Mother earthism' is not used as a self-descriptor, but rather as a rhetorical device to discredit certain arguments as superstitious and incorrect.")? Rd232 talk 11:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- For relevance to Tim Flannery and his recent book The Weather Makers, see the external link referenced in the article from On Line Opinion an Australian not-for-profit e-journal focussed on social and political debate. The article in the link takes on the views of Flannery, James Hansen and Australian CSIRO scientist Ian Lowe. If the article is not kept, I recommend merge to List of scientists opposing global warming consensus#The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes. The article is not the debate, rather the article references a position in the debate and because it references a position in the debate it should be, to my mind, kept.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- What does Tim Flannery have to do with this? And how is it an "alternate view" when it is merely a disparaging term for existing views, as the article itself admits ("'Mother earthism' is not used as a self-descriptor, but rather as a rhetorical device to discredit certain arguments as superstitious and incorrect.")? Rd232 talk 11:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, it doesn't have wide spread usage, original research. -- Kjkolb 11:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Idiotic term, but it seems to be pretty widespread, at least for now. Google comes up with 765 hits on the term...is that enough to warrant inclusion? The problem is that I'm not sure it's widespread enough to be here. Devotchka 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Neologism, does not appear to be notable or in widespread use. Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jkelly 20:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as virtually unused neologism. Only 40 unique google hits, almost all quoting one guy, who coined it. My guess is that he uses it a lot on his blog or somesuch, which would account for the bloated figure when duplicates are included. --Aquillion 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not yet notable. Most of the Google hits are coming from copies of articles "Mother-earthism infects climate change debate" or "All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism". pfctdayelise 00:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Aquillion and pfctdayelise. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:28, 31 October 2005 (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.
