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 delete. Neil ╦ 12:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming analogies[edit]

Global warming analogies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable and POV fork. Consists of a collection of analogies used by some global warming skeptics. This material was taken [1] from Global warming controversy, where it was recently shortened [2] to a single sentence due to non-notability, as discussed on that article's talk (see discussion near bottom of this section). Nethgirb 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Concept is clearly notable. A google search for "global warming" and "religion" alone gets 5.5m hits. There's no reason why we can't include analogies made by supporters of the theory as well. Iceage77 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator. In response to Iceage77, a search for "global warming" and "religion" does not demonstrate notability of this much more specific topic. --Nethgirb 11:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But this topic is more general not more specific. It permits inclusion of other analogies in addition to religion. Iceage77 11:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV-fork, redundant material, just a collection of arbitrary information.-Wafulz 12:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge Delete per above or merge into a related Global Warming article if material is considered desirable. Personally it seems arbitrary info to me. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. This is far more relevant to the subject of global warming than the section in the Global Warming Controversy article about passive smoking. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide evidence that it is notable? The section on passive smoking is more notable because there are concrete connections in terms of involved persons, funding, and organizations. --Nethgirb 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This type of argument is specifically listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions -- see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Raymond Arritt 13:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (i) Textbook example of a WP:POVFORK. (ii) Per Wafulz, disparate information is collected under a neologism. A search for "global warming analogies" returns precisely two (2) hits, one referring to "Changing Climates for Microsoft and Google" and the other having something to do with hiking. Raymond Arritt 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POVFORK. What next?... Global warming apartheid? --Victor falk 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one is really interesting: it's essentially a list of slurs directed at a scientific theory, and presented as though they were valid in the encyclopedical sense. If you pardon the punanalogy, I would liken it to an article titled Scientific description of the savage race and filled with quote mine material such as "Doctor This andThis of Foobarfton University has determined that the members of the savage race can be compared to dogs, as both have hearts and are unpleasant to a civilised human's eye."

Why do I call them slurs? Because that's how the title frames them. All the bulletpoints must be comparisons to nasty things, without substance. If a proposed entry wouldn't be a comparison, the title would prohibit its exclusion. If it's not a nasty thing, nobody would be interested in including it. If substance would be available, it would go to a criticism page, such as Global warming controversy.

An entry such as "Michael Crichton has compared the theory to eugenics" would be unthinkable in a criticism page or a section, yet it feels itself right at home at this "analogies" page.

This is a great propaganda work and I'll be saving it for my personal collection, but it has no place in Wikipedia. Digwuren 14:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV fork bilge. Bigdaddy1981 18:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. A good collection of analogies, but hardly an article worthy of Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV fork JQ 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Global warming controversy (or should I say re-merge, as it was wrongly deleted there after the pro-global warming side lost their case about keeping the evolution stuff in this article). --Childhood's End 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (I think you'll find that sort of pigeonholing of the editors is inaccurate and irrelevant.) Can you support your implication that this material is notable? --Nethgirb 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Childhood's End's comment about "re-merging" with Global warming controversy on the grounds that "it was wrongly deleted from that article" speaks volumes: this article is a POV-Fork. I would suggest that Iceage go back to the Global warming controversy page and edit that page. The analogies that have been made by Lindzen et al. can be mentioned in that article, as it is not off-topic for that article provided you stick to the usual wiki rules. Count Iblis 14:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to "Scientific consensus" This article appears to be a list of criticisms of using scientific consensus for policymaking. It's quite similar to the discussion at Scientific consensus#Uncertainty and scientific consensus in policy making, which already discusses global warming. This is essentially a list of cases in which an one scientific consensus was later replaced by a new scientific consensus and could be usefully incorporated into the scientific consensus article. -Fagles 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have currently two climate change articles on AfD: Climate change denial and Global warming analogies. Several days into the discussions, five editors have commented on both. Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other – what they didn't agree on is which article is a hopeless POV fork and which one provides valuable information on a clearly notable concept. Not that amazing maybe, but still quite remarkable. – I found both articles interesting and mostly well sourced. Documenting various aspects and details of one of the defining controversies of the early 21st century is not POV pushing; trying to exclude well documented, notable POVs from Wikipedia just because we happen to disagree with them, on the other hand, is. Unfortunately, global warming controversy weighs in at over 100 KB already and it's bound to grow, so rather than bickering about alleged POV forks, maybe we should think about a sensible way to split that article instead. Rl 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Each and every one wanted to keep one and delete the other". This claim is incorrect. I voted to delete this, and to merge Climate change denial into global warming controversy. I wasn't alone.JQ 20:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC my tally didn't include you (sorry, oversight), but your comment is of course correct. What I should have said is that "each and every one wanted to keep the content of one and delete the other". That doesn't change the fact that these two supposedly NPOV AfD !votes look suspiciously like voting along party lines. Rl 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's happening on other articles is not really relevant. Why is this material notable enough for a full article? --Nethgirb 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It becomes relevant if two related AfDs show a pattern of serious WP:IDONTLIKEIT – quite frankly, I didn't care much for either article until I had seen both AfDs. I don't think this material is notable enough for a full article, but those bits that are well sourced seem notable enough to be documented, and global warming controversy is too long already. That's the dilemma, and I don't purport to have solved it. Rl 04:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say the antidote to a pattern of bias is to look at the arguments, rather than how the editors are voting. See also WP:ALLORNOTHING. But actually, FYI, the material was not completely removed from global warming controversy—it was reduced down to a single sentence with the sources cited so people can read more if they wish (see the end of this section). Perhaps that's a solution to the dilemma. --Nethgirb 04:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Bias is a potential issue; you might try excluding the votes from editors who are involved in GW articles. By my (possibly imperfect) tally that leaves for this article 5 votes for delete, 1 for delete or merge, 1 for merge, and 0 for keep. --Nethgirb 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research as sources cited don't refer to any of the other analogies; if this were allowed we could have a multitude of Soccer analogies, Wine analogies, etc. Also, it's a POV fork. ←Ben^B4 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - as nom sez, it was cut from GWC for good reasons and shouldn't be recreated here William M. Connolley 21:25, 5 August 2007 (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.