Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists warning against anthropogenic global warming


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientists warning against anthropogenic global warming

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The dreaded WP:NOT, in this case Wikipedia is not a list of quotations, which is all this article is at present. Created as a counter to Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, but before anyone uses this as a reason to keep see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article can never be anything other than a list of names and quotations, since all the relevant science is located elsewhere on Wikipedia (Attribution of recent climate change, Global warming etc.) QmunkE 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Plus possible POV fork and violation of WP:SOAP. Very little content. Three out of the five quotations don't live up to the title of the page: they only show the quoted scientists believe in the existence of global warming, not that it is anthropogenic. --Folantin 11:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. A breach of WP:OR in its synthesis of information from a range of sources, presumably to push a particular POV. Dangerous triangulation of disconnected information from various sources. Snalwibma 12:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - just a vehicle for POV pushing and soapboxing. Moreschi Request a recording? 12:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The POV arguments could be used for *any* article supporting either side of the global warming controversy (of which there are plenty, and none of them are under attack of being POV - or at least have survived them pretty well).
 * The main point for creating this was to have actual scientists' opinions, rather than just those of politicized organizations, like in Scientific opinion on climate change.
 * And just because the article is not complete yet (it IS labeled a Stub) shouldn't be a reason to delete it. --Brissbane 14:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC) (article creator)
 * If you feel it can be improved, please continue to do so. However, at present and for the reasons I have given above it fails to be anything more than a list of quotations, which is not something which constitutes a Wikipedia article. I don't make any judgements about the neutrality of the article, it is the content (present and future) which I take issue with and that is the reason I nominated it. QmunkE 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Articles are not supposed to support arguments, they are supposed to present them. If you feel an article is biased in its coverage of a subject, please take it up on the talk page of that article. QmunkE 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and possible POV fork. ~ UBeR 16:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Grossly inaccurate in its present form, but that's a minor point compared to the fundamental unsuitability of the article. Raymond Arritt 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - A good-faith attempt but I think misguided. Anything approaching a full list would be far too long; this will always be hopelessly incomplete and thus badly misleading William M. Connolley 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's impossible that a list like this can be anything but hopelessly incomplete, so hopelessly incomplete as to be severely misleading. Guettarda 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - In response to Brissbane's comment above, Scientific opinion on climate change mostly lists scientific organizations, not political ones, and that is the best way to present the state of the consensus. I can see the argument that individual scientists' opinions are worth including, but the right way to do that is to cite a survey (if one exists) rather than in effect attempting to do a survey by hand; that would be OR and doomed from the outset. The article listing skeptics is only possible because there are so few of them. However, I do appreciate the effort that went into creating the page on Brissbane's part. --Nethgirb 07:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete That's what I think too. The list will be much too longer, as anyone who can get press attention is likely to say something on the topic. . The other side is worth keeping so they don't get overlooked. For these, Wikiquote is the place. DGG 07:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- Noroton 18:54, 23 March 2007 (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.