Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming skepticism

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 merge to Global warming controversy. —fetch ·comms 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming skepticism

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

This article is a rather obvious POV fork of the existing articles on Global warming controversy and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The ground that it covers is already covered in those articles. I really can't see any good reason why a duplicate article needs to be created. I'm open-minded as to whether deleting, merging or redirecting is the best course of action here, and will leave it to the judgment of AfD participants. ChrisO (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a counterpoint to Global Warming Denial. It is necessary to have an article which describes the sceptical viewpoint of AGW and not just the supposed denier side of things mark nutley (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles (Global warming skepticism and Global warming controversy together. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global warming controversy as it has been for most of the last 3 years to avoid WP:content forking Polargeo (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy - so much for AGF - or did no one note the under construction tag? This is a blatant attempt to present one side of the issue by AGW activists, while preventing any mention or information of the other side of issue, and is a POV based nomination. GregJackP Boomer! 17:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, rather than attacking other editors, you could explain why you don't believe it's a fork of two existing articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack any editors, I merely pointed out the same thing that Jimbo did, that this was "made by a highly political editor with a long history of politicized editing." As to the fork issue, how is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming relevant? It is a list, not an article. How this article is a POV fork of a list is beyond me. As to the article on Global warming controversy, it does not cover skepticism, it covers controversies, and while some controversies may involve skepticism, not all skepticism involves controversy. Second, there are plenty of articles on similar but differing issues, such as Climate change denial, Global warming denial, etc. There are 33 articles in the Category:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics and 83 articles in Category:Environmental skepticism - and not a single article on what either global warming skepticism or climate change skepticism are. There are 7 articles alone on IPCC reports. This is, as I stated, a blatant attempt to show one side of the issue only. It was nominated due to your POV, and as WP:POVFORK states: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement my recognition of that fact is not an attack, but a statement grounded in policy. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Delete - This is an information fork dealing with matter in one of the two ongoing editorial bloodbaths in the midst of long investigations by the Arbitration Committee. There is absolutely no way that any end run around the Arbitration Committee should be allowed. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite: Why do you believe this article is an "end run around the Arbitration Committee"? I'm not sure I follow. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: It boggles the mind that we have separate articles on global warming controversy, politics of global warming, climate change denial, global warming skepticism, scientific opinion on climate change, public opinion on climate change, and climate change alarmism (I'm sure there are more, but that's a start). These should constitute one, and perhaps at most two, articles. There's a gross violation of WP:UNDUE through excessive forking of what is, after all, a minoritarian viewpoint. More to the point, it is impossible for me to see anything of encyclopedic value added by this article that could not be adequately covered in one of the other 6 content forks. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you would have no objection to merging all 7 of the IPCC reports into one article? They are all about the same thing too. GregJackP Boomer! 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care whether they're all covered in 1 article vs. 7 separate ones. What is the relevance to this AfD? MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all three or four articles noted by MastCell, and also List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Wow! Who created so many obvious POV forks? Biophys (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that the GW articles need rationalising. However, the other articles mentioned by MastCell are rather out of scope of this AfD, so we can only act on the Global warming skepticism fork for the time being. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will make one point. I have not edited the article further, because I will rework the article and reintroduce it. Right now it is a pile of junk that I was going to try and fix and make a decent article out of. However, there is no incentive to do any additional editing to the article at this point. I'll wait until after you take action here, then write a new article that is substantially different from the current article (thus avoiding CSD G4), and we can go from there. This nomination is premature - the article has not been worked on in depth yet, so there is no way to determine whether it is a POV fork or not - unless y'all have ESP and can tell what the article was going to say. How many of you even know what the first section was covering? Do what you will, I'm done arguing with AGW activists here. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global merge. WP:IAR and merge the MastCell list into one article. Then fork properly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- the article is under construction (see the tag?) and being worked on by at least three editors. You don't even know what it is going to say yet, AfD is premature. Additionally, global warming skepticism is not thoroughly covered elsewhere, certainly not in the two articles that the nom mentioned. Global warming controversy article is already way way too long and covers a range of topics that should be split into separate articles. Denialism is covered more extensively, but there is obviously a great deal of difference between denialism and skepticism. The list of scientists opposing the mainstream is a hodge podge list of views ranging from outright denial of warming to slight skepticism over the scope or impact of AGW -- it is not accurate to say that the article adequately addresses the topic of skepticism. The fact that there are separate articles on climate change denial, scientific opinion on climate change and climate change alarmism essentially begs for this article to be created to fill the remaining void where skepticism belongs in the spectrum of opinions on global warming. Finally, this nom is a rather blatant POINT-y attempt to suppress non-majority views and lump them in with more fringe denialist views, brought by an activist editor with an unmistakeable agenda. Let the article take shape, then nom it for AfD if it's appropriate. Minor4th 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should propose a split rather than start a fork then. Why does nobody ever do this the right way round? I guess the answer is that it may not suit the POV they wish to put forward. Polargeo (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I propose a split. All better? BTW, I don't see this as a fork because it is a broad enough topic that a stand alone article seems warranted. This is especially true since editors such as ScienceApologist remain confused about the difference between skepticism and denialism and believe that they are interchangeable points of view, each having exactly the same meaning as the other. There is a great need for an article on skepticism so that such confusion does not continue unchecked. The problem is so acute that it led ScienceApologist to label Anthony Watts a "denialist" and even represent that three peer reviewed journals called him a "denialist" when in fact they referred to him merely as skeptical of the majority view. See the problem and hence the need for this article? Minor4th 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy keep. I assume you meant "strong keep"? As an aside, the more you can focus on the article's merits and resist the temptation to badmouth the nominator in personal terms, the better. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does meet the criteria for speedy keep. The nomination is caused for disruption and that are so erroneous that it is obvious that the nominator has not even read the article in question. ChrisO claims that it is an obvious POV fork - which means that he could not have read the article. As the article stands now, the lede and the first section have been rewritten, with the remainder of the article to go. Of the portion that has been rewritten, all it covers thus far is the consensus view is AGW exists and is valid, and cross-links to the main article. How is this a POV fork? GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, disagreeing with you does not prove that ChrisO is disruptive or that he hasn't read the article. As an admin who's closed a lot of AfD's, I can tell you that no admin in their right mind is going to believe that this meets speedy-keep criteria. Really, you (all) need to stop taking wild swings at the other participants here and actually engage their arguments. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, accepting for the sake of argument that it is not an WP:SK, please explain how it is a POV fork. The article does not meet the criteria for a POV fork. I will accept that it is possibly a content fork, and that the subject of the article represents a POV, but under content guidelines, this is allowed so long as "the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view." That is what I am doing, writing neutrally on a POV topic, which is allowed. There is no way to say it is a POV fork, since I have made no comments on the content of Global warming controversy nor have I indicated anywhere that I disagree with the contents of that article. I feel that the matter is sufficiently notable and different for a separate article, and can be done neutrally. How can it be determined that it is POV at this point? GregJackP Boomer! 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I might add that all scientists are sceptics, so it seems a little unfair to appropriate the term for a small subgroup of them. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also slanderous to label any scientist that disagrees with the consensus view as a denier. GregJackP Boomer! 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "skepticism" in the context of global warming has particular meaning -- maybe wait til the article is finished, and I think it will actually be clear what the term means in this context. @Mastcell - no, I meant speedy keep; the article is not complete and AfD is premature. Minor4th 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously Denialism != Skepticism != Controversy. It is appropriate for us to provide articles dedicated to each distinct subject area so as to make it clear to our readers what the distinctions actually are between them. Under these circumstances merging would be inappropriate. --Absit invidia II ^T_C (Hominem unius libri timeo) 21:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Absit invidia II (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And he has made zero edits inside this topic area.[reply]
Merge the two articles (Global warming skepticism and Global warming controversy together.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We also have Environmental skepticism to consider. There is considerable overlap in these articles. Wikispan (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete / revert to redirect. Embarassingly badly written article, which is factually incorrect; no valuable content to salvage William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete Per above, plus there is no reason for a separate article except for a WP:COATRACK Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Global warming controversy, article is redundant.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Global warming controversy: probably redundant. Even if it should be created, the current version should be merged as noted by William M. Connolley. —innotata 17:21, 21 August 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.