Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiproganda on 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   delete. JForget 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproganda on Global Warming

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

The infighting between Wikipedia contributors is not notable. The National Review article is basically a self-published source (Solomon has participated in the tug of war) and cbsnews.com simply copied the whole thing, so these do not qualify as reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not for neologisms; dic-defs of words such as "Wikipropaganda" do not belong here. --Zvn (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a single opinion column by a participant in the edit warring described is insufficient to establish the notability of this highly self-referential article. Andrea105 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia namespace without a redirect. Self-referential and neologism. &mdash; RHaworth 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason that Wikiproganda on Global Warming would be considered something other than an attack page with respect to User:KimDabelsteinPetersen and User:William M. Connolley? Andrea105 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I would very much respect a Wikiproganda page with all that is or might be involved, from every angle with all issues not just on global warming or whatever.--  R. Mutt 1917    Talk  19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even enough to qualify as a neologism. A one-time use made up term.  Citi Cat   ♫ 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, article creator has previously been blocked for repeatedly creating this exact article under the name Wikipropaganda  Citi Cat   ♫ 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no use outside the one partisan article, term has not come into common use. those are the FACTS regarding this article, despite all protests to contrary. I do admire the tenacity of the global warming skeptics, moving forward with only hearsay, out of context statements, personal attacks and pseudoscience. they have even adopted the phrase "pro global warming" to describe the rational scientists and citizens working to stop the process. thats right, we are FOR global warming. however, nature bats last, fellows. start buying beachfront property in the california central valley.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; as a nonnotable neogism. I also suspect the creator has a grudge against Wikipedia for the way we coverage this field. The way to deal with that is to work within our system and not write an article which is critical of the way we handle the situation.   Them  From  Space  22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above.Ashley Payne (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to the millions I am paid to !vote delete on wikiprogranda.--Milowent (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above; as a nonnotable neogism; and per WP:NAVEL. Bearian (talk)
 * Delete for reasons given in nom. - Achissden (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete non-notable, self referential, nonsense neologism. Global warming denial POV fork also. Verbal chat  11:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment With the current 26,200 hits on Google it is simply wrong to say that the term is only used in one article. I agree with "R Mutt 1917" that there should instead be a Wikiproganda page with all that is or might be involved, from every angle with all issues and articles. I believe that this would provide a very interesting page which charts the important growth, and growing pains, of Wikipedia.  This page showing one unavoidable aspect of the development of a worldwide "Encyclopedia, For the People, By the People" is very notable and deserves a place here.   ~ Rameses (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We have Criticism of Wikipedia that could cover the term if its truly notable, and the NR article by Solomon is already cited there. The fact that Solomon thinks the wiki articles on global warming are biased is not shocking to me.  Perhaps we need to canvass K-Lo as well.  There are many articles that other editors will tell you have a conservative bias (Glenn Beck,  for example), and they don't merit separate articles either.  A good example of a liberally-coined term that had an article that was later merged elsewhere is Friedman_(unit), which has actually been used much more broadly than Solomon's term.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete preferrably speedy, per everyone William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment I have no objection to a fair process to consider this Article for Deletion and will abide by your collective decision. However, while the AfD process is underway, William M. Connolley acting in concert with Verbal have effectively Blanked the article reducing it from 4,734 bytes to just 567 bytes - from a page to just one line! This is clearly Blanking and one of the two behind it is the subject of the original newspaper article - so it's also clearly motivated. When I tried to restore the page to prevent this blanking, Verbal threatened me with the 3RR rule.  Since they are tag teaming against me this is effectively censorship. Any advice on how to get some justice here?  ~ Rameses (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the edits shortening the article and they appear appropriate to me. The current version  is supported by the sources.  Your prior versions were inserting original research (like the number of google hits for the term) and the "Wikipropaganda - Destroying the Basic Concept of Wikipedia" section which went beyond the source materials.--Milowent (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you continue to make accusations like this after the warnings and advice you have received, you will very likely be blocked for disruption. I've already pointed you to why WP:GHITS aren't useful, and asked you to participate on the article talk page. The most pressing need is the provision of multiple reliable sources that detail this concept. At the moment there are none. Verbal chat  15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I used the history to see the start to end of this and it is an attack piece and the editor who wrote it should be strongly cautioned about this kind of behavior. Two editors that are in good standing with the community are named and attacked.  The removal of most of the article was indeed proper by our policies.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. As other people commented, it's one article and a reproduction in one other media. GHITS is not really a solid argument. --193.144.12.130 (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as part of the wikiproganda global warming cabal. (or as a non-notable neologism used a few times by a very semi-notable "journalist".) -Atmoz (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete. No evidence of notability. Oren0 (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-list for improvement - I've assessed the ripped-down version, which isn't adequate as an article. It should be re-listed to give time for development & improvement. If no improvement, delete. -Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked hard, there's really not much that can be done with this, and relisting is to get a better handle on consensus, which seems pretty clear at this point.--Milowent (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion and G5. Creations by a banned user(s) and G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject if possible. Delete as nonnotable, no secondary sources, DICDEF that doesn't even merit transwiki per wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion, and finally global warming has not melted snowballs, which are snowman's bollocks. Maybe some Self-references to avoid merit a speedy deletion category of their own? Шизомби (talk) 19:06, 11 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.