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. I'd like to point out that the article was improved greatly between the bulk of the delete afd votes and this closure. Plus the article had just been created when it was sent here, WP:AGF may apply in this case.--Wizardman 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming conspiracy theory[edit]

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

Non-notable and lacks sources. POV forking, trying to classify those who deny anthropogenic global warming or the IPCC's opinion as a conspiracy theory. UBeR 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Title It doesn't describe a "conspiracy". At points it describes various "conspiracies." It also describes conflicts of interest as well as narrow-minded ideologues doing what narrow-minded ideologues do. That does not add up to a conspiracy. It doesn't even add up to a collection of conspiracies. It is unfair to call it a conspiracy or only conspiracies. That's WP:OR if you're drawing the conclusion that any of the items in this sorry article are conspiracies when that hasn't even been alleged. And when you pile them all up in a giant heap, you add fuel to the overheated brains of conspiracy theorists who are off their paranoia medication. Wikipedia Is Not An Asylum.
  2. Indiscriminate This isn't an article. It's an indiscriminate list of different types of things tied together because they disparage, rightly or wrongly, the pro-global warming crowd: fictional representation; the use of the word in a TV documentary that apparently just uses it in tabloid fashion to get viewers (and admits it really isn't about a conspiracy after it hooks in the viewers); and charges or critiques of various sorts (sometimes using "conspiracy" for shock value). Wikipedia Is Not Tabloid Journalism.
  3. POV fork The real subject of this article could be titled something like "Charges of improper actions against global warming activists". I have no doubt some of those improper actions exist and I'm all for covering them. But there's a place for that: in fact there are a number of places for that in proper Wikipedia articles. And when you can't find a place for a specific charge of conspiracy or other improper activity, you create either a specific article that meets notability standards because the subject of the article has been the subject of at least two independent, responsible sources that you can cite (surely not impossible to do if the charge has even an airy whiff of plausibility to it, and if not, wait until it does before sticking it in an encyclopedia.), or come up with an article that can link them all together in a responsible way. Wikipedia Is Not Advocacy Journalism.
  4. Irresponsible Treat the other side as you would wish to be treated yourself. Even if you just want to be an effective partisan, irresponsible charges always hurt your cause in the long run, usually in the medium run and sometimes even in the short run. There's nothing wrong with making sure political views and even noteworthy, responsible accusations of wrongdoing are represented in the encyclopedia. But your customers have a finely tuned ear for what seems irresponsible. When you toss around pejorative words like "conspiracy", "racism", "sexism", "unpatriotic" and the like you denigrate the responsible allegations against those for whom those words actually apply. You use those words only when you can offer specific proof and when you report on others who use them, you do it with specific citations. And you carefully describe the charges, showing how they've been presented and by whom and what reasons or evidence have been offered for them, if any. Yes, Wikipedia only reports what others have said, but it reports responsibily or it's not worthy of the name of an encyclopedia. Is it? Wikipedia Is Not A Pedestal For Calumny.
  1. At the very least, the name of this article needs to be changed. If "conspiracies" is kept in the title, then all nonconspiracies need to be eliminated from the article. Personally, I don't have any hope at all that it will become an encyclopedic article in any form. And if any editor has added to this article with the purest of intentions, I apologize for not assuming good faith, but there appear to be very obvious patterns to the way this page has been built. That's not a conspiracy, it's human frailty. Noroton 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misread it. I take it back. I looked at the article again and my revised view is below. I didn't realize what the point of this irresponsible article was. But even if I'm still wrong in understanding the point of it, after looking through the sources, it seems to me that the article is using them irresponsibly.Noroton 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references in the paper refer to the claim you describe in your opening para, namely that environmentalists, scientists and others have acted in concert to promote a theory they know to be false, on the basis of ideological or financial motives. This alleged concerted action has been referred to as a conspiracy on several occasions, as cited (three references were given - I apologise for the referencing problem that may have obscured this, and thank you for fixing it). More frequently, such claims have been described by critics as "conspiracy theories". The predominantly pejorative nature of the usage is noted right in the first sentence. JQ 20:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, not all comments made by overzealous journalists merit encyclopedia entries. ~ UBeR 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh, I get it. This is a way to attack the global warming skeptics. The more I follow the links, the more horrible this article looks; sometimes the sloppiness is evident right on the page:
  1. "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" documentary on Channel 4 in Britain: "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but [...]"
  2. The quote from the Cooler Heads Coalition says of someone who criticized another skeptic of promoting a conspiracy theory: "Sounds plausible to us." That was the last line in their press release (or whatever announcement it was on their Web site). Absolutely nothing in the words that precede that statement shows that they seriously believe it's a conspiracy. The quoted statement was a rhetorical flourish (irresponsible, in my opinion, but not a claim that there's a conspiracy).
  3. The Washington Post "article" is a Sunday magazine piece that engages, more than most, in rhetorical flourishes of its own and doesn't pretend to be objective. It characterizes the statement of a skeptic as a "conspiracy theory" but the quote used to back it up (shown in the WP article) could be interpreted as either describing a conspiracy theory or describing ideologues run amok. A couple of paragraphs before, the author writes that both sides have their own charges of a "conspiracy theory, of a sort." Of a sort???. Let's change the title of this article to Global warming conspiracy theories of a sort.
  4. "The general claim that the theory of global warming is a lie promoted by members of one or more interest groups secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes has been made on a number of occasions [...]" (emphasis added). The problem is that none of the citations back this up:
    1. On its Web page, the Oregon Petition does say global warming is "a lie" but doesn't say it's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes"
    2. Melanie Philips calls global warming theory (in 2004) a "fraud". An irresponsible rhetorical flourish, not a charge of a conspiracy.
    3. Same with Martin Dirkin calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times." Nothing else in the article where this quote comes from supports the idea that Dirkin actually thinks there's a conspiracy of groups "secretly acting in concert for dishonest purposes." What we have is another rhetorical flourish from a filmmaker hawking his movie.

And what we have overall is an article that is full of holes and not worth keeping. Overheated rhetoric is not conspiracy theorizing. Writing Wikipedia articles is not propagandizing. Or at least it's not supposed to be.Noroton 00:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on changing my vote The article has been improved quite a bit since I saw it last. It proves to me that the charge that there's a Global warming conspiracy has been made numerous times both as an explicit statement and at other times as a clear implication. I think the article should make it clearer up top that this is often more a rhetorical tic than a serious charge (that many of the people who make the charge don't take it seriously is clear from the quotes in the article). But my problems with the article no longer warrant deletion: There's clearly some value here. Kudos to JQ! Noroton 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aditionally, it appears the author have grossly misunderstood the terms "conspiracy" and "theory" when they are not used together. A conspiracy is not the same thing as a conspiracy theory. Likewise, a theory is not the same thing a conspiracy theory. ~ UBeR 05:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a differences between critics of he conventional scientific view, and those who think it a deliberate internationalist ( or whatever ) plot. This is a fair documentation of the latter. The critics have every right to have their views fairly represented objectively and treated seriously. The reader can safely be left to judge the merits. The conspiracy theorists have also the right for their views to be presented fairly, and if a fair presentation leaves them somewhat silly, that's not the fault of the recorder who describes what they say. Any detailed problem of NPOV on a particular point is for the talk page. That there are such theories is real, and unfortunately the theories are notable. The possibility that they might be right is for them to prove, and we show what the say they have proved. Again, the reader can be safely left to judge. We deal with all such pseudo scientific views the same way as we do scientific ones, so we don't have to decide which is which. If they are publicly notable, we present them. DGG 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Right, leave it to the reader to judge when the article name is conspiracy theory. There's a distinct difference between theory and conspiracy theory. Saying the CIA killed JFK is conspiracy theory. Saying the Sun's variations have a real impact on Earth's climate while presenting discernible evidence is a theory. In fact, there's also a legitimate article on the global warming controversy, no where in which so-called conspiracy theories are mentioned. This article is pure bunkum. ~ UBeR 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As you say, the solar variation theory is not a conspiracy theory, which is why it isn't mentioned in the article. The claim that the whole theory of global warming is a swindle/scam/fraud with many participants is (at least in the view of those accused of being participants) a conspiracy theory, and hence it is mentioned.JQ 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh no you don't, JQ. Where's the proof in the article that we've got multiple conspiracy theories instead of over-the-top rhetoric? It's easy to see the difference: Someone with a conspiracy theory would explain the details, try to show proof of what was going on behind the scenes, name names. Someone with a theory would get into it more. No one's doing that, at least not so far as a reader could tell from either the article or its sources. Conspiracy theorists act altogether differently from people going too far in their rhetoric. The theorists generally can't get elaborate enough; the others make a passing reference and jump on to the next point (just like they do in the source material for this article). I'm not asking for the equivalent of UFO conferences, the books on how the theory works, the intricate diagrams of the grassy knoll: Just give me someone with something more than a rhetorical tic.Noroton 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentI see UBeR's got you literally surrounded, DGG, and he brings up an excellent point: there's no proof whatever that there's any conspiracy theory here. And my comments above are better addressed in a deletion discussion rather than a talk page because the problems are so pervasive in the article that they can't be fixed. Take out all the irrepairable passages and there's only a whisp of an article left. What remains is too weak to sustain what the article says exists. I'm sure that somewhere some nutcases have actual theories to go with this article. But it would have to be shown that the theories — the actual crackpot beliefs, not some over-the-top rhetoric — have attained enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Show us evidence that that's likely to happen and I'll change my mind to "Keep", or join us in deleting this article. Noroton 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - sadly, all too true. Don't understand claims of OR or unref'd, since it clearly is ref'd. Proposer has misread the article, which cleary says its about those who assert conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons - nothing about simple disbelief William M. Connolley 09:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As it has been pointed out above, few or even no source at all speak of a conspiracy theory per se. But I would agree that there exists enough material to introduce the idea of a "Global warming hoax". I have added some material in this regard. This title would help solve the POV issue (conspiracy theory is pejorative, as the author himself pointed out). Also, if this article is to be kept, it must focus on the fact that some skeptics or other people have found grounds to believe that climate science is not used for its stated aims or is being "hijacked" by special interests, rather than to focus on accusing skeptics of being "conspiracy theorists", since then the POV fork accusation would hold. --Childhood's End 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Global warming so that it may be re-written and developed further (if necessary). As it is, as a separate article, is just a soapbox for one of the two sides of this controversy. --FateClub 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unfortunatly it is not uncommon for the really far-out sceptics to allude to a conspiracy - Inhofe (for instance) has said many times that its a hoax - and also alluded that Chirac (and others) are using Kyoto to create a world-government. To state that something is a hoax - ipso facto means that the scientists who claim this, are involved in a conspiracy to fool people for some sinister purpose. (in Inhofe's case its to bankrupt the US apparently). --Kim D. Petersen 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except when it isn't ipso facto a charge of conspiracy in all the ways and instances that I've described and which you've just ignored. The ironclad way to prove your point is do what I asked: Just find the evidence and cite it.Noroton 05:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the relevant article shows, the criteria for a conspiracy theory are themselves debatable. It's clear from the discussion here, and from the links in the article that those who are accused of being part of a hoax/fraud/swindle involving thousands of scientists, all the leading scientific organizations and journals and so on regard this as a conspiracy theory. Others disagree, and I've tried to note this in the article. You appear to think that unless you personally are satisfied that there is a conspiracy theory, the article should be deleted.JQ 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh really? There's a consensus among scientists, scientific organizations, and scientific journals that there's a conspiracy theory? Please do not tell me you, too, have fallen trap to WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If every time some controversialist uses the word "scam" and "hoax" we have a full-fledged conspiracy being described, then: "go to hell" would always be a serious wish to see someone condemned to everlasting damnation; "I could kill you" would always be a threat; "get outta here" would always be an invitation to leave; "son of a bitch" would always be a comment on that person's mother, etc. etc. etc. JQ, you're displaying the same problem in this discussion as in the article itself: you're being slippery with terms. If conspiracies are really being alleged, it shouldn't be too hard to back that up. As I say, conspiracy nuts shout from the rooftops and post on the Web. Where are the sources seriously alleging conspiracies?Noroton 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe we should clarify terms here. I have no doubt that most of the sources I'm quoting (for example, Inhofe, Melanie Phillips, WorldNetDaily) are alleging conscious fraud as opposed to applying a rhetorical flourish to a claim that people's views on this issue are influenced by their general political position. The statement has been made too many times, in too strong terms, to be a mere flourish. Are you disagreeing with this, or are you endorsing UBeR's position that 'The article states "the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons" can be described as a conspiracy theory. It cannot.' JQ 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noroton, I think I've found what you're after when you observe "Someone with a conspiracy theory would explain the details, try to show proof of what was going on behind the scenes, name names". Check this piece by Claudia Rosett for Fox News. [1]. The behind-the-scene mastermind is named as Maurice Strong, who's described as being " best known as the godfather of the environmental movement, who served from 1973-1975 as the founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) in Nairobi. UNEP is now a globe-girdling organization with a yearly budget of $136 million, which claims to act as the world’s environmental conscience. Strong consolidated his eco-credentials as the organizer of the U.N.’s 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which in turn paved the way for the controversial 1997 Kyoto Treaty on controlling greenhouse gas emissions." As you'd expect, the details are far too complicated to summarise (Iraq, China, NK, SK and Ted Turner all get a run) but part of the claim is that Strong is pushing Kyoto so China can profit from trade in emissions credits. It looks like this one's been around for a few years [2]JQ 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a serious article about a serious and important group of people. It's not a POV fork, as the page is not created to advance a POV, but to report on the theory/movement. Matchups 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's used to support the POV that people who deny AGW with bona fide scientific data are conspiracy theorists, rather than respected scientists within their field. This entire article is off the basis of J. Houghton, G. Monboit, H. Evans, all journalists, save Houghton who is the founder of the ISSR. Three quotes by leftist pundits makes every AGW denier a conspiracy theorist? Think again. ~ UBeR 02:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatantly fails to meet WP:ATT and obviously a POV fork at best (intent seems to be to create yet another "article" to use WP:WEASEL Words in the POV-pushing quest to disparage those not worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming). Sorry, just wanted to try the style that is used in the article. -- Tony of Race to the Right 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attempt to characterise the views of many respected scientists as a "conspiracy theory" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. ~ Rameses 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite The article has been badly written as it contains POV and OR but the topic is notable as many people believe there is this conspiracy theory.
  • Strong keep The concept formed the premise of a best-selling book (State of Fear) which led to its author becoming widely sought-after to comment on the global warming issue. Listy and needs work, but clearly notable and needed. Raymond Arritt 15:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Although State of Fear was a work of fiction, it contained a lengthy appendix, and the aim was clearly to plant the idea of a global warming conspiracy theory in the public mind. The Fox News piece JQ mentions above is an actual conspiracy theory claimed as factual. That's two concrete examples of conspiracy theories about global warming.-greenrd 16:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Non-OR parts into Global Warming. Just Heditor review 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...act as a permanent cartel in climate articles." Sounds like a Global warming conspiracy theory, eh? Raymond Arritt 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it is a theory when it is validated 999 times out of 1000 that you hold the same opinions and help each other in supporting your respective edits/deletions. --Childhood's End 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- article is well-documented and sourced. It may have POV-problems (who calls it a conspiracy theory exactly?) but these are definitely fixable. --ScienceApologist 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two journalist and one founder of the International Society for Science and Religion, to answer your question. ~ UBeR 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leave off the "theory" and the concept of a "global warming conspiracy" is far more prominent.[3]. Maybe a solution is to leave "theory" out of the title. The content of the article would be nearly identical, and notability would be beyond question. Raymond Arritt 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it works in the title, but I've changed the opening sentence to refer to '"global warming conspiracy" or "global warming conspiracy theory".JQ 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I can see it now... All this hot all air conspiring against the humans! ~ UBeR 20:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Global warming religion" gets far more hits than "global warming conspiracy" [4]. Time for a new article? Iceage77 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • A good suggestion, Iceage77. The claim that science is really a form of religion has also come up (largely from the same people) in the creation/evolution debate, so it is certainly notable. Maybe you'd like to make a start.JQ 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • But like this article it would be inherently POV. The argument of course is not that science is a form of religion but that belief in AGW is based on faith and irrationalism. Iceage77 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The solution to POV problems is not to suppress points-of-view. The NPOV solution is to include the POV you describe and the alternative POV, citing the overwhelming majority of scientists who point to the mountains of factual evidence in favour of AGW and say that any rational person would be convinced by it. The article could then link back to the counterclaim that the mountains of evidence have been fabricated by a global conspiracy/swindle/fraud, in which the scientists themselves are participants, as stated in The Great Global Warming Swindle and other sources discussed above. JQ 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if it is not a POV fork then it can be merged into global warming, can't it? 38.100.34.2 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The phenomenon of public figures calling GW a hoax or a conspiracy certainly exists and is notable: Sen. Inhofe and Michael Crichton should probably have the top spots. The article certainly does need a major clean-up. I'd like to see a lot less qualifying and apologizing - something simple like: "several people have claimed that global warming is not just false but is known to be false by its proponents" then go on to describe how Inhofe has made this a key position in his role as chair of the Senate Energy committee; and recount how Crichton's State of Fear has be selling widely and sum up how it pictures the situation (conceding that it is fiction, but that does not take away the sting of its implied message that this is also what is going on in the real world.Birdbrainscan 00:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, I think you're misunderstanding. The article isn't stating the people are calling GW a hoax or conspiracy. That's given. What the article is saying is that anyone who calls GW a hoax is a conspiracy theorist, based on three people's opinion! There's quite a difference, and I'm assuming that's why most people have unknowingly voted keep erroneously insofar. ~ UBeR 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you're misunderstanding. In nearly every comment you've made, you've confused the claim "AGW theory is incorrect" with "AGW theory is a hoax". The former is a scientific claim, though one that has notably failed to convince any significant section of the scientific community. The latter (given the large number of people who have to be involved) is plausibly described as a conspiracy theory, especially when the article documents numerous unequivocally conspiracy-theoretic statements of the same view. However, some people (you and Noroton, for example) may want to draw a distinction between "hoax/fraud/swindle involving thousands of participants" and "conspiracy". The article mentions this and there is a stubby section where citations to this POV can be included.JQ 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Precisely. You explain it well: "'AGW theory is a hoax' . . . is plausibly described as a conspiracy theory." Note the word "plausibly." I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not here for you to draw conclusions on people's thoughts. Just because you think people calling AGW a hoax is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean you get your own article to say because this person denies AGW he's a conspiracy theorist. That isn't how Wikipedia works. See WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is why the article makes no OR claims and cites notable and verifiable sources who have described it quite directly as a conspiracy theory - notwithstanding your attempt to claim that a leading figure in the IPCC and journalists writing for major news sources are not notable . Of course, if you are serious about the claim that three sources aren't enough, give a number and I'll be happy to meet it, at the expense of added listiness. JQ 10:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have 3 people calling two documents conspiracy theories. What you're doing is turning that into anything that is critical of AGW is a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia doesn't allow that. P.S. I said or implied the founder of International Society for Science and Religion is non-notable> he's a scientist, but that brings up another point: Is it a scientist's job to determining what is a conspiracy theory? I'm pretty sure that's beyond the scope of science, but that's neither here nor there. ~ UBeR 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, so I've added a very prominent Minister in the UK government whose portfolio covers the area in question, referring specifically to conspiracy theories. Does that change your view on this point, or (as I'm coming to believe) would no evidence of any kind change your view ?JQ 20:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can have all the evidence you want, but you still can't use that evidence for the synthesis. This is laid out in WP:SYN. ~ UBeR 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As you say, I can produce all the evidence I want, you'll still vote to suppress it. So, I guess we'll let this process limp to a close.JQ 10:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No, you're obviously no comprehending very well. You can have all the evidence you want, but you can't use that to assume something totally different applies to it. That's synthesis, whether erroneously or not. ~ UBeR 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The conspiracy theory is notable and thus should have an article here on Wikipedia. This article is different from the aticle on global warming controversy, because that article does not focus on conspiracy theories, but rather on (a priori) bona fide objections to global warming theory. Count Iblis 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on notability : Many editors here have supported the "Keep" camp on the ground that the subject is notable. I am not decided yet on whether this article should be kept or deleted (see my comment above) but only to clarify things about notability (which is so easily misunderstood because of partisan views), here are a few rules taken from WP:Notability :
- A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject.
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow attributable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline
- In order to have an attributable article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources.
- In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors. (core problem here, imho)
- General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works.
These rules exist for a good reason, and it is in order that WP remains an encyclopedia and does not become some blog. So, I think that if this article can be saved, it is by removing the focus on the "theory" willing that skeptics think that GW is a conspiracy theory, and by focusing instead on serious motives that made some skeptics say that GW was a hoax. Right now we're far from that, and I dont know whether this would leave enough material to warrant an article. --Childhood's End 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article obviously fails in notability on points three and four. ~ UBeR 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with notability here - the sources are prominent figures (a UK Cabinet Minister on one side, a senior US Senator on the other, scientists, prominent journalists), quoted in prominent publications. In fact, the listy and badly structured nature of the article reflects an overload of this kind of thing, added in response to claims that three sources weren't enough, and so on, claims that were promptly abandoned as soon as more sources were put in. Obviously, it would be good to have someone uninvolved edit the article, and given the many notable sources, this would be easy, though I doubt anyone will want to get involved until this afd is over.JQ 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems in response to UBeR's original AfD reasons, that this has now been proven notable and has been pumped full of sources. The "counter-arguments" section still looks messy, but the rest of the article doesn't otherwise smell of POV to me, it looks rather neutral. It seems to establish its point. "Global warming conspiracy theory" is, the article establishes, really used to "refer the claim that the theory that global warming is caused by humans is a conscious fraud, perpetuated for financial or ideological reasons". I'd be perfectly happy to see all this material merged into global warming controversy, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:07, 30 March 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.
More