Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 close) RMHED (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change denial[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Climate change denial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Re-nominated, as the request was withdrawn within an hour3 hours, 40 minutes last time. This article is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article cites many articles which would be considered editorials. I do not believe this article could possibly be re-written with a neutral point of view, as even the title seems biased. Global Warmaing is an on-going debate, just because one side disagrees with the other, it doesn't mean they are in denial. Brougham96 (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without question. I have suggested before that this article was a giant piece of POV. Yes, there are reliable sources suggesting climate change is occurring. However, it is not scientific fact, nor is it even close, just because there are groups of people who think it is true. Its difficult for me to fully explain what I mean. Point is, article (even the title) is written like Climate Change is pure scientific fact and that you have a sort of disease for denying it (it makes it sound like that), so delete. I'd suggest an article that represents the arguments of both sides of the climate change debate, and I'm more than willing to talk with the biologists on this site that heavily support this article to explain what I mean. WIKIPEEDIO 05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though I mostly agree, please look at WP:BIAS. MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether climate change is happening or not an article such as this can still exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A concept can be denied independently of the existence of scientific proof; thus your argument is vacuous. Since when was Delete without question an option anyway? RTFM. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep (changed from delete per Olaf below - much better said) POV fork, makes heavy allegations based on opeds or unreliable sources Jaimaster (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erb? Sources include Science, NYT articles (not op eds) and a Newsweek cover story. Parts might be bogus for all I know. But the article has fine sources that support what it says. Hobit (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it is a POV fork, article size is already 40k so this side of the argument deserves an article of its own. Your claim that the sources (eg newsweek) are unreliable is farcical. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing farcical here is you mentioning a mere fraction of the sources used and claiming that validates the entire page. The vaster majority of sourcing on that page is oped garbage. Jaimaster (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as AfD is concerned it does validate the whole page. As I and others have said, all we need to establish here is that the topic's covered in reliable sources sufficiently to establish notability; no number of dodgy sources in addition to that is enough to warrant deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed to weak keep based on the article needing improvements that may never happen. Jaimaster (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By POV fork I mean a fork that is biased towards a paricular POV, rather than providing neutral coverage of it.
  • It looks to me like most of the sources are quite reasonable. Could you explain your "dubious sources" comment? Hobit (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination might have been withdrawn within an hour, but a review of the previous AFD and the one before it clearly shows WP:SNOW in favor of keep, so unless the have been substantial changes to the article since the last AFD, I have to vote a procedural keep here as the article has now passed two AFD with snowballing. 23skidoo (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me we do not have a snowball this time, as we started off with 5 deletes, including the nomination. The 1st nomination was over a year ago, and certainly was not a land slide (note the length of the debate) and the 2nd nomination wasn't left open long enough to have a sensible debate. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8-9 keeps plus a merge vs. only the nom for deletion? It was short, but well attended. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but keep in mind the debate was only open for 3 hours, meaning that most of the people who responded most likely had the page on their watchlist, and had some interest in in personally. --Brougham96 (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems well sourced. As far as the NPOV stuff, are we going to delete holocaust denial too? The article seems fine and recent AfD was SNOW keep. I just don't see even a vague case for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, something similar to this was a cover story at Newsweek. [1] Found in a previous AfD (and the article itself, but under a different name for some reason). Title is "Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine " Hobit (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you saying that it would be acceptable to write an article about Athiests and call it Denial of Religion? There is no question in my mind that the word denial inherently endorses one point of view over another. Also, as noted above, there are several very bold statements in the article that are only sourced with op-ed articles, the holocaust remark, for example. -Brougham96 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) the word "denial" isn't POV in my opinion. If "Denial of Religion" were a well-sourced term, I'd be perfectly happy with such an article. b) As far as the bold statements, I'm not seeing anything "noted above". Could you clarify? And finally, I really don't think Global Warming is an on-going debate. At least no more than evolution or the Holocaust or smoking causing lung cancer. The science is largely on one side. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With "noted above" I was simply refering to Jaimaster's comments wich previously noted the op-ed articles used as sources. As I'm sure you know, we have an entire artilce about Global warming controversy.. see specificly Global_warming_skepticism#Controversy_concerning_the_science. There are two points of view on this matter and that article has reliable sources showing an opposing view. Since we have a well souced article about the debate, I wouldn't say that there is no on-going debate. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the talk page for this article, I'd say the use of "op-eds as sources" hasn't stood up. Could you give actual examples? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm up against he clock here and have to get going, but off the top of my head, reference number 8 is [[2]] which even in the url can be seen that it was in the Opinion section. I can look into this more later today. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the statement in the article it's backing up is that "opinion journalists...describe it as a form of denialism." It's reasonable to object to an op-ed being used as a source for a statement of fact, but a statement about what opinion journalists have said backed up by four references to opinion columns doesn't seem at all problematic to me. Either way, bad sourcing is not a reason to delete as long as good sourcing is also available. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As remarked in the previous AfDs, the article global warming controversy is about genuine debate on the veracity of the scientific consensus on global warming: the purpose of this article is to focus on politically or otherwise motivated denial which does not seriously address the scientific community's arguments. The nominator says "just because one side disagrees with the other, it doesn't mean they are in denial" which is of course true: however, there are people who are in denial and whether or not they are correct about global warming the fact that they do not engage in scientific debate differentiates them from those on both sides of the argument who do. The word 'denial' is therefore perfectly appropriate in my opinion: it's not about people with legitimate arguments, but those who just say 'no it isn't' without addressing the science. The references in the article indicate that the latter group is significant in size and notable in effect, so the article has a place in the encyclopedia - independent of the existence and size of the former group. As to whether individual facts are correctly backed up: I haven't checked them all but there are certainly plenty of sources there which aren't just opinion pieces, so the subject is notable and can have a well-cited article. Whether it does so currently or whether there are many statements lacking non-op-ed sources is not a question for AfD. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous AfD and plentitude of verifiable sources. Also, I sense some WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This is a valid topic, and seperate from Global warming controversy, in that while that article is about people who can see the evidence and draw different conclusions, this is an article on the significant amount of people who seem content to stick their fingers in their own ears and the ears of the public and yell "LALALALALALA". The fact that its well sourced doesn't hurt in the slightest. Baased on the size of the article, a merge would be impractical. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unclear on where in WP:NPOV it says as long as you refence biased sources, a biased article is okay. Not to say every single source is biased, but quite a few of them are. -Brougham96 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe quite a few are - I haven't checked all or even most of them. But as long as there are enough non-biased sources that a decent article could be built from, and I strongly think there are, the article needs cleanup or rewriting at most but not deletion. Violation of NPOV is not grounds for deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? I'm pretty sure that a proven violation of WP:NPOV is perfectly accptable grounds for deletion. Can anyone provide a second opinion on that?-Brougham96 (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a content fork is on the list. NPOV is usually a cleanup problem unless it can't be fixed. If any case of POV problems were a reason for deletion, we wouldn't have any articles. See WP:DEL.
  • This certainly seems like a fork of Global warming controversy to me, and I really don't thinks this article could be fixed. It's title is even biased. Phrases like..."'climate change denial' usually refers to disinformation campaigns alleged to be promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby." ...are speculatory in nature, as they are speculating on the motives of a person or persons. If it were just one sentance it wouldn't be a big deal, but the whole article seems to be built around that idea. -Brougham96 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If true, that would be a good/valid reason to delete. But the existence of op-eds in the sources isn't a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the sources support the statement that the phrase 'climate change denial' is often used to refer to disinformation campaigns. I don't see what's inherently speculative about that claim given that it's attested by multiple reliable sources. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. There are clearly at least some solid sources there. If a source seems inappropriate, the correct course is surely to challenge it at the article, rather than attempt to have the whole article deleted. N p holmes (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable topic. I must say that I would like to see articles on liberal denialisms, not just conservative ones. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Any suggestions? Hobit (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gender difference denial? Northwestgnome (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since were off topic here, I would submit 9/11 denial would qualify. (note that page is a redirect which isn't subject to WP:NPOV) -Brougham96 (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are subject to WP:NPOV: if I made a redirect from 'England's prettiest city' to Ely it'd still be a POV violation. The relevant point is whether the phrase can be sourced to independent sources annd has wide usage, not whether it appears in an article's text, the title or a redirect. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis is not about scientists disagreeing. This is about a "denial industry" which has no regard for evidence, much like Holocaust denial. This denial industry has been written about in reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison2 (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- there might be some issues with POV, but those can be fixed rather than deleted. The article is magnificently well sourced and clearly notable. Reyk YO! 00:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a highly notable topic. Any POV concerns should be tagged as such. POV issues are not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a POV fork, hence it will have POV issues. That in itself should be used as a reason for deletion. The article has a lot of citations, so it's not like some extremist tried to take a quick stab at this. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point of clarification Your vote is for keep, yet in your comment, you indicate that the article is a POV fork, and as such a deletion would be justified, unless I'm reading you incorrectly. Could you clarify? J. Langton (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nominator falsely claims that the last AfD debate was withdrawn within an hour when in fact it survived 3 hours, 40 minutes and attracted 9 keep votes and 1 merge with no deletes. They quickly withdrew because Stephan made a convincing argument how this article can be made to be am NPOV, balanced accounting of this somewhat controversial theory and had a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing anyway. The debate happened anyway (contrary to what is implied here) and invariably would have been a Keep result. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep with prejudice as the subject is undoubtably and verifiably notable (there is a well established denial community, not unlike Holocaust denial and others). Even if it were a POV fork this article size alone (>40k) already nearly justifies splitting and global warming controversy almost certainly should be divided at 150k. Future nominations should be promptly closed too. WikiScrubber (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the first two voters have history with this topic and it's not surprising that the next two followed the flow. With a dozen or so Keep votes in a row we can't be far off invoking SNOW now. WikiScrubber (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE Note: first dif above isnt even from the article in question. Sounds like someone went on a fishing expedition Jaimaster (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether people have previous issues or not, let's not let the debate turn into an argument about this. While I can't see this going anywhere but keep, I also don't see much harm in leaving it open the extra <30 hours if a WP:SNOW close is going to irritate people. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a newbie to this debate considering the fair application of Wikipedia's deletion policy I wanted to know why the first votes were Deletes given the previous snowballs, and wasn't in the least bit surprised with what I found (though not the same article, The Great Global Warming Swindle is on topic wouldn't you say?). In any case looking at previous contributions is fair game for such debates: This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments.. Oh, and I agree that we should let this run its course, just pointing out is all. WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldnt be suprising that the first people that commented have been involved in the issue before. When the template was added it pinged watch lists. Im sure its fair game to point out that person x has view y shown by dif z (just as its to fair to say you went fishing and didnt catch a whole lot), though I have to say I am lost as to what it has to do with sock puppetry :\ Jaimaster (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if global warming is disputed the existence of global warming delianlist isn't disputed.--OMCV (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have this brilliant hypothesis about electricity being the outcome of the wrath of electricity trolls, who reside inside all electrical equipment. The hypothesis is in excellent agreement with computer models I myself have made. Anyone who doubts the hypothesis is in denial.
The hypothesis of global warming caused caused by CO2 is mostly based on computer models, and it needs considerable rework to be scientifically based:
1. Warming according to the present hypothesis should occur chiefly at Arktis and Antarktis - we observe it at Arktis while Antarktis has been frozen stiff these last 30 years, except for a narrow peninsula stretching towards South America.
2. The upper part of the Troposphere (8-12 km height) over Equator should warm about twice as fast as the surface of the Earth below - doesn't happen.
While some people undoubtedly are in unreflected denial, the science behind the "hot house" hypothesis is flawed and the use of the expresion "Climate change denial" is contrary to the simple scientific rule that those who promote a hypothesis must demonstrate it to be correct, not the opposite. John.St (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of us are well convinced by the demonstration of the hypothesis by computer models (which get more refined with every tick of the clock) - including those, like me, who have just joined the discussion. Perhaps you can point us at the Wikipedia policy requiring application of the scientific method for inclusion so I can go about nominating the entire religion category for deletion? WikiScrubber (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, this article is not (or should not be) about whether one side or the other has demonstrated the veracity of its position; it's about non-scientific denial. That there is denial of climate change for non-scientific reasons is demonstrably the case even if climate change is incorrect. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is mostly a settled issue in science, and this article documents a phenomena that has been documented in newspapers, books, and scientific publications, thus meeting criteria for an article. Verbal chat
  • Keep Well sourced and encylopedic article about a notable and specific position in the global warming debate. Could be more NPOV in places, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubting AGW is not WP:FRINGE as it is easy to nominate prominent adherents Jaimaster (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many of the sources used are not particularly reliable. More importantly, there's absolutely no reason for this article to have a separate entry from Global warming controversy, as this is just one specific facet of the controversy. The article is poorly-sourced, at least borderline POV, and unnecessary. J. Langton (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Just piling on here, but there's not much to add. There are denialists for nearly every reasonable theory or historical fact, including AIDS/HIV, Holocaust, and Global Warming. They discuss a socio-political issue that is notable and interesting. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a fork from the main article for POV. I believe we are changing the climate however this article simply should not be here. It could be renamed but probably should be deleted and any balanced content placed in the main article or in an article discussing alternative views. Mohummy (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you think would be a more appropriate name? Olaf Davis | Talk 15:14, 4 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_change_denial_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1089101033"