Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration

Science discussion: Some editors who voted to delete Climate change exaggeration voted to keep Climate change denial.

As a lover of scientific honesty, openness, and transparency, I believe that all well sourced scientific topics should be covered at wikipedia, even those that have been verified to be wrong. Thus, I favor keeping the articles on Astrology, Flat Earth, Homeopathy, Numerology, etc.

Some of the editors who voted for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration voted for keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (2nd nomination).

These two articles are opposite sides of the same coin: one is about overstating the effects of climate change, and the other is about understating the effects of climate change.

Anyone who favors keeping one, but deleting the other, is pushing POV.

As an inclusionist, I favor keeping both.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just maybe, one has significant coverage in reliable sources, while the other is something you came up with that is at best found in some blogs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I cited U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com

2) The article is not about the phrase "climate change exaggeration." It is about claims that overstate the effects of climate change.

3) We can't use google searches to determine what to call an article. For example, Wikipedia has an article called Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. But the only place that uses that exact phrase is wikipedia, and mirror sites of wikipedia, and things that link to wikipedia. No one else uses that exact phrase. The phrase that is in common usage regarding that subject is "Climategate," but that's not the name of the wikipedia article. So we can't use google searches to determine what to call an article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was a classical case of synthesis and sometimes even all-out original research. Your sources describe some very few events that you interpret as "climate change exaggeration" - which requires some mental gymnastics. How is e.g. the topography of the Netherlands fit in? The sources do not support the article name or the topic as something independently notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]