Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Warming Hysteria


 * 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. JForget 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming Hysteria

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

Unreferenced, biased, original research which appears (based on proper noun capitlization) to be a setup for promoting a blog of exactly the same name. PROD'd and communicated with author multiple times but they have deproded without improvement or comment. Any evidence of any actual hysteria should be sourced and added to the existing global warming article.  7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hopelessly biased content fork. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is getting itself a bad name by only allowing one side of the climate debate to be heard. This entry provides a modicum of balance. It should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.117.100 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea behind refusing to allow content forks is that it is a way out of reaching consensus on what to include in the main article. Sometimes the "losing" side creates the fork article to get their way, and sometimes a member of the majority in the main article creates the fork to purge the material from "their" article. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP has both sides of this debate. Please see here as well as it's see-also sections like this.  Please contribute reliably sourced information there.  Thanks    7   talk &#124; &Delta; &#124;   06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete on basis of WP:V. Global warming hysteria may deserve to exist along the same lines as Socialized medicine in describing a pejorative used by climate change skeptics or deniers or those who think others are overly concerned about climate change issues. This does not appear to be that article. Location (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a biased content fork. This is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed section of a paper. Billbowery (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an (inherently) biased content fork, if content relating to this subject is encyclopedic there are already established articles where it should go. In its current form it is essentially a dictionary definition. Hut 8.5 12:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as biased and unsourced. McMarcoP (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to global warming, nothing to save here RadioFan (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per world dog  Chzz  ►  15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This page cannot be verified.  Triplestop  x3  02:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. POV. (And "socialized medicine" is not necessarily a pejorative). Hairhorn (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Global warming controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...since it is a possible search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Anything in the world can cause hysteria. Why having an article for this one, which does not even seem to exist? Materialscientist (talk) 08:01, 14 August 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.