Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change alarmism

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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change alarmism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is original research and a POV fork for Global warming controversy. TFD (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't actually OR - it's based primarily on scholarly sources that actually discuss the topic. While it needs to be better linked to the global warming controversy articles, I fail to see what makes it a POV fork. It is, in fact, an article about one aspect of the way that climate change is communicated. Maybe once an article is written about climate change communication, it should be upmerged, but that's a different issue concerning an article that does not, at present, exist. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I too doubt that it is either OR or a POV fork. I'd like to see more of an explanation of why you believe either William M. Connolley (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though parts are clearly in an essay style, that does not mean the article concept is deletable. Some claims are made for which actual solid references should be used, but the basic idea is pretty much not deniable - that some people have used clearly inapt claims as to the future effects of warming (or cooling) designed (such as increasing the spread of AIDS etc.) Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no POV fork here whatsoever. We have Global warming and Global warming controversy. The article clearly explains or starts to explain the reasons of the controversy. It's a good article: rather than bringing it to AfD, please work on the article to improve it. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence that there is an agreed definition of the term or a body of literature that has developed. Rather there are numerous examples where writers have used the expression. What are the criteria for adding to the article? Do we include anything that uses the term or any example of exaggeration of global warming, or are we limited to the definitions in the lead? Not one of the 13 Google scholar hits uses the term in its title or is specifically about alarmism, except perhaps a book by Iain Murray from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Alarmism also forms only part of the discussion in the articles supporting the article. Mostly they are about how global warming is communicated, of which alarmism is identified as a poor communications method. TFD (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy on WP that article titles, per se, must be found in "scholarly sources" at all. Nor is such a valid argument for deletion, which has been amply discussed in AfDs in the past. Clearly the article encompasses any exaggeration of global warming harm (such as the AIDS example above, is such was done). Collect (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the topic achieves notability if you consider alarmism as a blanket term for fear inducing, exggeration etc. The notability justification should have articles with such terms in their title and they should be used to give the direction of the article and any criticisms. The text is currently rather scrappy but can be developed. Dmcq (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article serves a purpose, the same way the perfectly neutral article Climate change denial does. Calling it a POV fork is a misunderstanding of what a POV is. Wikipedia also has an article on the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet it does not, by having such an article, imply the Monster exists. It is not OR either, there are plenty sources discussing GW alarmism. Joepnl (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article doesn't currently link to "Global warming controversy," but is should. SBHB and Guettarda, among several others, have made a good start on this article. There are a lot more sources listed here that I'm currently reviewing that support this topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable content to be sustained as its own article. Nice treatment of extremes on either side as "alarmist." Minor4th • talk 23:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.