Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Global Warming Foundation

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Global Warming Foundation


Promotional piece from blocked user TMG PR Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Highly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. capable of being revised to a NPOV article; might be notable  DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG's assessment. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. There are some news hits, but it's not clear that any of them quite rise to level of in-depth coverage of the organization per se, rather than of the claim that global warming was just a temporary blip which has ended (GWF seems to be "leading" in this claim). However, given the controversial nature of the claim, it seems lilke GWF will come under more scrutiny over time, so eventual notability seems fairly likely. The material presently in the article may just be copy-pasted from their "about us" page, but is basic WP:ABOUTSELF material if not, for the most part, so it could be okay. It's just not the actual encyclopedia article yet, which would cover this "global warming is ending" claims and the controversy about it in detail, since it is the organization's actual claim to notability. PS: It's also not clear that every news hit for "Global Warming Foundation" is about the same topic; one news story refers to an organization in Thailand, so unless there's one GWF with multiple offices, we have two different subjects here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The fact that the title might be capable of being made into a NPOV neutral article is hardly reason enough to keep a promotional draft by a blocked user. If a neutral editor wants to work on this in seven days, they can do so with thanks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete-Wot RMC sez. --Umm, I guess a majority of your AfD noms are solely on the locus of promotionalism.So, it can be revised..... &#x222F; WBG converse 14:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete with no predjudice to an uninvolved editor creating a non-promotional version in the future. This draft however is unsalvagable spam IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.