Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public opinion on climate change


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion on climate change

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Seems like a POV Fork from here jheiv (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree, Climate change consensus is almost completely about scientific opinion, and frames the issue as one for scientists to decide.  Besides which, Climate change consensus is one of the most ludicrously POV articles I've seen here, starting from its title.  It's like having an article called Pro-life consensus or Agreement that Guantanamo Bay should be closed.  I still don't know how I feel about this particular article, but I may post again if I make up my mind. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" can be taken any way at all, unless one contends that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, a position taken only by Exxon and its astroturfing crew. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

*Merge unless expanded. Reading this Afd I expected this to be a POV fight over a long article. But the article as it now has just one paragraph, so it is ridiculously short to qualify as a WP:SUMMARY-style subarticle at this time. Pcap ping  10:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep at least for now. Nomination looks premature; article should be given time to flesh out. Also CCC is a poor article, per Gfc, and I wouldn't like any article to be judged in relation to it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a very ambitious project. We do have some data points, though, such as the BBC Word Service-commissioned opinion polls that have run since 1998 in over a score of countries.  We should not include anything about uninformed public opinion in Climate change consensus, where it is definitively off-topic.  I see no reason to delete this new article at present. --TS 12:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm sure secondary sources are out there. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I commented above, and having thought it over I conclude that if we can have Scientific opinion on climate change, which we do, we should have Public opinion on climate change; it's a very notable issue and a logical counterpart.  It's Climate change consensus that is the POV fork, having been created on March 29 "from Global warming controversy," presumably by an editor who spontaneously determined that controversy was over and consensus had been reached.  Nice. effectively communicating that controversy was over and consensus had been reached.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Climate change consensus . If and when this subject's coverage here grows enough in content and references to warrant its own article then the article can be easily recreated. Until then it's simply a fork. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like "if and when" has already come to pass. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Climate change consensus additional text inserted or User talk:ZuluPapa5/Climate Change Opinions if it is created additional text inserted Bonewah (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC) . The only WP:RS on the Public's opinion is going to be surveys and the like, and even that would be fraught with problems.  Id say that this article has about a %95 chance of becoming a vehicle for editors opinions and a massive WP:NPOV problem.  I would be delighted to be wrong, but I doubt that will occur. Bonewah (talk)
 * Merge into Climate change consensus. That article reading (a bit) as though it is an issue solely for scientists to determine arises from it's history. It should also include other perspectives, including significant public figures who say there is not a scientific consensus, etc.  (ftr, I know there is a scientific consensus, but we are supposed to represent all significant views fairly)  ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Revise to keep with a bit more thinking and input. However, I think this article should mostly focus on debate other then 'do the scientists all agree?' and refer to Climate change consensus and Scientific opinion on climate change for in-depth coverage of that question.  ‒ Jaymax✍ 07:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'do the scientists all agree?' isn't a question this article should address. But 'do people believe that the scientists all agree?' is a frequently polled question and would belong in this article. Oren0 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep-While the article is currently a stub, it has a great deal of potential. Besides, to some extent, all wiki-articles are works-in-progress.  There are numerous polls to draw from that have been conducted over the years, and the different opinions held by different demographics and different countries is quite interesting.  Additionally, there's got to be some good sources out there that delve into the disconnect between science and public perception.  That could be incorporated too.   A lot of people have been clamoring on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change for an article like this.   And, yes, Climate change consensus does contain a brief section of public opinion, as it should.  This article could become a sort of child of Ccc, growing into a longer, more detailed exploration of the topic.--CurtisSwain (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Google scholar indicates plenty of high-quality material to base such an article upon, combined with several opinion polls over time there is plenty of material for a good article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a page Scientific opinion on climate change, a page Climate change consensus (with a section public opinion), I suppose the rebuttal page Climate change denial, Global warming controversy, simply Climate change and also simply Global warming, a page on Climate change in California, one on the Global warming conspiracy theory, some other random articles I'll skip, and finally the referenced page Public opinion on climate change. I think these should be consolidated, perhaps I chose the wrong one for AfD. jheiv (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * comment discussion at Talk:Climate_change_consensus is leaning towards removing that article William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic is notable and has been the subject of both academic study and reporting in the press. The subject is not a POV fork, and barely (IMO) a subset of the climate change consensus article.  I disagree with the "merge" proposal - this article, in fact, is a potential parent for "by country" daughter articles.  Definite keep.  Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: There's a discussion going on at Climate change consensus to split that article between this one and Scientific opinion on climate change. Pcap ping  11:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has expanded. See also discussion at Talk:Climate change consensus, which appears to be the redundant one (it covers the same material as Scientific opinion on climate change, the counterpart of this article). Pcap ping  15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong merge into a new article with others. See discussion here   the draft merged article is here User_talk:ZuluPapa5/Climate_Change_Opinions  Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Until your article actually exists in main space, it's premature to delete this one from there. Pcap ping  15:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - OK, I'm on board with this being a parallel to SOoCC. There is a suitable amount of material to include in this topic area.  I am OK with either keeping Climate change consensus as a separate article focused just on the debate around the consensus, or having parallel sections on "the scientific consensus" between POoCC and SOoCC that are cross linked as a means of maintaining NPOV.  Either way this article should remain.  Depending on how ZP5's article turns out I don't think that there is a problem with it existing in parallel with POoCC and SOoCC since it has a very focused purpose and can be viewed as being a more in depth view of the topics involved.  --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The article is informative and as a scientific article does not hurt Wikipedia.NorthfaceW (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Articles like global warming controversy have grown out of control and as such where reasonable articles should be split. The subject of public opinion on climate change is one that is quite notable and frequently covered in the press.  Furthermore, I don't see how there is inherent POV here, and therefore the POV fork argument seems nonsensical to me. Oren0 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a sensibly named companion article to Scientific opinion on climate change, unlike some of the other, confusingly named and so unfocussed articles on the subject such as Climate change consensus and Global warming controversy. Those are the ones that should be deleted, with whatever useful, non-repeated content they have merged into this and the others that stay. Climate change and Global warming are global overview, scientific articles and these are all sub-articles to those. Other candidate sensible, focussed sub-article names in my opinion would include Economics of climate change and Politics of climate change. Effects of climate change could include observable effects such as animal and human migration, altered times of spring/autumn, alterations to animal breeding habits, weather etc, not political and economic effects, which would have their own discussions. At some point in the future there will be very little on earth that has not been affected by climate change and we need a sensible and expandable structure now for its ongoing coverage, rather than the present disparate hodge-podge. --Nigelj (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good premise for an article, especially on this hotly-contested topic. The narrowness of its focus should help ameliorate disagreements and edit-wars. Awickert (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - We seem to be snowing Keep. Can someone please close this thing?  --GoRight (talk) 21:30, 21 December 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.