Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global warming controversy (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Keep. Please take any discussion about merging or renaming to the article talk page. (non-admin closed). Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming controversy

Completely non-neutral. Anything worthwhile should be merged into Scientific opinion on climate change, because this article is just a POV fork of that article, trying to make it sound controversial when we're supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Serviam (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Much like Creation-Evolution controversy, this article is needed to discuss tbe social controversy and related aspects, which is distinct from the scientific views on the matter. Jefffire (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Contorversy" is hardly a good name, a rename to something else may be in order, but this needs a rewrite in that case, and that article is also badly named.--Serviam (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you want a page move, not a delete. Raise the matter on the article talk page. Jefffire (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is distinct from Scientific opinion on climate change in that it also discusses the political and economic aspects of the controversy. --Itub (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see that the article violates the WP:NPOV policy even if the opinions expressed by the subjects quoted are not neutral. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is this article a fork? Yes, but forking of content is allowed on wikipedia. In the main global warming article and in the article about the scientific opinion we don't want to bother the readers with the controversy about global warming that exists in right wing media, the blogosphere etc..

Are there POV issues with this article? Yes, currently this article presents the opinion of a few skeptics as if this has (or should have) a big scientific impact. Now, a legitimate fork that happens to have POV problems cannot be labeled as a "POV fork", because a POV fork is a POV version of an existing wiki article. Count Iblis (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-sourced, has arguments from both sides.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced, there is good coverage of differing opinions (including, gasp, international context) and in my view the tone of the article is relatively POV free. Issues of sociology, including public opinion, controversy, media, politics, etc. are all eminently notable in addition to the scientific context. Where issues do exist they are best addressed on the article's talk page, or through bold editing. I also note the overwhelming vote to keep in the last deletion debate and would politely suggest to the nom. that they may be pushing a snowball up a very steep hill in this AFD discussion. Debate 木 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not only well sourced it has at least a fair attempt at being NPOV, at least to my reading, even though my own biases are probably in play there. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is quiet informative and has loads of information and its for a cause Kalivd (talk) 14:28, 12 June 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.