Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Warming: Hype


 * 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   delete. Nja 247 08:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming: Hype

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Appears to be a not WP:NPOV version of the Global Warming article Dougofborg(talk) 12:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 13:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POVFORK/essay (possibly a school paper). The "Conclusion" section is a give-away that this doesn't fit here. JJL (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Everything in this article is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Fails WP:SOAP. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, may or may not be a fork, but it surely is argumentative essay of original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR, WP:SOAP andy (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly WP:SOAP. There are plenty of other places sceptical POV belongs Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree with all of the above.Vote Cthulhu (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, It isn't OR. The article does site references, and there are a number of prominent scientists and articles written calling global warming a "hype".Smallman12q (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay. The topic is redundant to Global warming, Global warming controversy, Politics of global warming and Climate change denial. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly redundant essay. Gigs (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per propagandist essay.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for sourcing. The phenomena of "Global Warming" has indeed been disputed as "political hype" by scientists and press. Wiki is about balance, and all legitimate viewpoints are worthy of inclusion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. After cleanup, there would be nothing left of this article that is not already present in Global warming. -Atmoz (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not POV fork if covered itself in reliable sources. What would be left after cleanup would depend a lot on just who was doing the cleanup now, wouldn't it? As long as what's left is itself well sourced, there is no reason to make it into something it is not. And Global Warming is itself a huge article... so having a seperate article on the opposite viewpoint gives balance to Wikipedia and makes sense. And as for POV forks, I note that Satanism has not been merged into Christianity (and please lets not call either of these "propagandist essays" too)... so it must be that Wiki accepts that opposite sides exist in any argument. Its up to the reader to make their own determinations based upon the information offered and how it is sourced.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "opposing viewpoint" is at Global warming controversy. There is no need for 2 articles on the "opposing viewpoint". And just because something is sourced doesn't mean it doesn't violate NPOV. -Atmoz (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At nearly 100kb, the global warming article is practically "full." I'm curious as to why there can't be two articles on the opposing viewpoint. A google news search shows that a number of scientists and organizations have indeed called global warming a hype.Smallman12q (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and there are two real-world POVs, neither "neutral" in that each states their case from their own prespective and in depth: that global warming is a major concern, and that global warming is hype are opposing views. If each is side of the dichotomy is treated neutrally by their respective articles, and present their asserions in an encyclopedic and well sourced manner, wiki has room for both. We are here to inform the reader, not promote one side more or less than another. POV forks are emminently allowed here on Wiki... for balance, and to improve the project. Its not a "bad word".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:15, 3 May 2009 (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.