Misplaced Pages

Climate change alarmism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin said merge but there is a dispute at Talk:Climate change alarmism#Inappropriate merge tag removed. so would like a review whether this decision should really have been to just keep instead. Dmcq (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse close As one who did not opine at all, and recognizing that the discussion here is only about whether the close was reasonable. I count 1 weak keep !vote (which said the article is "lousy"), 11 keep !votes, and 13 delete/merge/comment !votes (which looked like a "not keep") from here. Thus the close is obviously sufficiently sound to survive DRV. Collect (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

May I point you to Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The strengths of the arguments should be properly assessed. Dmcq (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think I should point out that global warming controversy which is where the merge proposals pointed to is a huge article and people would like to split it up more. Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And that is not a topic for DRV as far as I can tell. It is likely a topic for the article talk page in order to reduce the size of the article, in point of fact. But nothing to do with the discussion here. Collect (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It most certainly is a relevant topic for DRV, since A) people who stated merge with that article apparently didn't check it B) the people who claimed POV-fork, apparently also never looked at any other article. Consensus is not vote counting - it is looking at relevant arguments. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse-"Merge" was easily the best interpretation of the debate. At the very least, a discussion on the subject should take place, something that the merge tag facilitates.--Fyre2387 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the close (and oppose the deletion/merge) for the reasons discussed at Talk:Climate change alarmism#Inappropriate merge tag removed.: The closing editor acted arbitrarily, while discussion was still continuing, before there was any consensus, and contrary to the trend of the discussion; it constituted a misstatement of the situation which if not reversed as an error constitutes deliberate bad faith. Comment: divergent counts! My quick and dirty count was 12 to keep, ~8 delete/merge. This divergence in itself suggests that the discussion was prematurely closed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • My count was 8 merge/delete, 12 keep, 5 delete (without merge). Q Science (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Endorse close - Editors claiming that it was prematurely closed don't understand deletion procedure: It ran the standard length. (actually, a bit longer). The other claims - that it's supposedly not a POV-fork, etc - are simply trying to reopen the discussion they failed to win at AfD, without providing new evidence. Global warming controversy may be long, but climate change alarmism is pretty awful, and highly redundant to other articles so there's only a small amount of content that's worth considering keeping, if that. 86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether the article is a POV-fork, higly redundant, etc., etc., are irrelevant here, where we are reviewing how the Afd process was hijacked. If there is some requirement that Afd discussions must, automatically, close after a certain period, please show us where this is stated. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus(edit conflict). Most of the arguments for merge and/or delete where based on faulty argumentation. Claims of POV-fork needs to be substantiated - not asserted. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not an argument, and finally there is no reason that an article name/title must be a common phrase. Alarmism within climate change is a notable topic - and perhaps that would have been a better title - since no one would claim that to be a neologism. Do note please that contrary to some claims on the AfD (and elsewhere), i'm most certainly one of those that people have called alarmists (zealot even). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All of this was discussed at the AfD, and failed to win over. This is an article on a neologism about criticism of rhetorical techique, an esoteric subject. Google hits (which included news, sscholar, etc) are relevant to showing that a claimed notable neologism, in fact, isn't a notable neologism. No convincing argument has been put forth for why this single phrase and technique used to attack global warming proponents is worth an entire article, when it doesn't appear to even be widely used. Most of the article is an off-topic POV-ridden rehashing of the main global warming articles.

There are huge numbers of redundant articles and pov forks in the bingoglobal warming set of articles, all of which cover similar material. This review is unhelpful, and simply serves as an attempt to refight lost battles. 86.** IP (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - but that you don't buy into the argumentation (or that they failed to win you over), doesn't mean that the arguments were bad or not based on solid grounds. Had the article been called Alarmism in the climate change debate (which is a clumsy but accurate title), you wouldn't have been able to claim that it was a neologism => which makes that argument bogus. The only relevant issues are:

• Is the topic notable.
• Is the article written within WP:NPOV and WP:V.
• and for POV fork: Is the content mirrored elsewhere with a different POV? (hint: It isn't.)

Finally your claim that there are "huge numbers of redundant articles" is another bogus argument, since you fail to point out even one such redundant article. You claim that Climate change alarmism is a POV-fork (which means a deliberate non-WP:NPOV fork of already existing content), but you can't seem to point out what content that it should be a fork of - there is nothing in the Global warming controversy article about this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)No. Look, we've got climate change and global warming and global warming controversy. We also have climate change denial, and oh look, we've got scientific opinion on climate change, and public opinion on climate change. We also have List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. That makes two articles about the facts and four articles about attitudes to the facts. That's more than enough. What we need is a small number of coherent, complete and balanced articles. What we don't need is a large number of disparate articles, so it's necessary to choose some to merge. This one has drawn a short straw, so could we please implement the merge now.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes? It is a huge topic area/subject space - one that on a daily basis globally has books published/news paper articles written/TV documentaries filmed/political debates held/.... etc etc. (Just out of curiousity: How many articles do we have on local american politics?) Of course there are lots of different articles examining different aspects of the subject space. The question is still: Is it notable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  Just an addition: Here are news articles within the last week that mention this particular subtopic (+"climate change",+"alarmism") - taking only the reliable ones, it gets into a huge number of articles. Combine that with scholarly articles examining the topic - and it is rather difficult to claim that this particular topic isn't generally notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Kim, I can see that this topic is important to you, but would you please do us the courtesy of letting us decide what the question is? I don't even remotely care whether it's notable, and I care even less than that how much coverage we have on local American politics. What I care about is how many climate change-related articles is the optimum number to have on a collaborative encyclopaedia. To see that, we have to see the topic area from the point of view of an uninformed, but intelligent and curious, lay person. Say, an African teenager who has two hours a week to use the internet and needs to research climate change for homework. How do we present information to him or her?—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not really important - i just hate bad arguments ;) As for the african teen - he won't get to this article, since it is deep in the information well. When you look at a topic - you don't start with the edges - you start with the base overviews, and then dig deeper. But that doesn't mean that side issues aren't notable or encyclopedic when you get beyond the basics. You do not cut Bayesian inference because someone needs to be able to grasp mathematics, and won't have time to get to a point where he can understand that article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I really, really don't see this as analagous to Bayesian Inference. It's not an article about a rigorous mathematical process that's logically discrete and taught in undergraduate lectures. It's an article about people who have extremist views about climate change. When you get right down to it, climate change is not as wide or deep a subject as mathematics is, and there's a limit to the number of articles that the subject area can reasonably sustain. I think we've exceeded it.—S Marshall T/C 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This at the very least is a reasoned argument, and as such i respect it :) I just don't think that our policies support that argument (but that is a whole other thing), since what we determine article retension on is: Notable or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there are other factors that determine article retention as well as notability. Yes, a lot of arguments at AFD involve quibbles about notability, but it isn't the only thing that decides whether to keep an article.—S Marshall T/C 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim, if you don't put the phrase in quotes, you don't get the neologism. And we can't just say that using the word "alarmist" near the word "climate change" or "global warming" is notable - because at that point, we're not even discussing a neologism, we're attempting to do an analysis of the debate, and will need sources specifically discussing how the rhetoric is used in those specific cases to avoid WP:SYNTH. Unless you have such sources, all you get from that search is an incitement to Original Research, which is forbidden. 86.** IP (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! Alarmism within the climate debate is not a neologism, it is a concept. Its about time that you grasped that.... You just destroyed your own strawman :) Humour aside: You focused too much on the title and what you saw as a neologism, rather than try to figure out what the topic area was - the topic area is not "climate change alarmism" as a word - but alarmism within the climate change area. And if you take a look at the very first reference, which is a scholarly article, you will see that it discusses alarmism within the climate change debate - So there is no WP:SYN there - the article clearly links "alarmism" (general topic), and analyses its usage in the "climate change" debate (specific). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if we accept all your arguments, that gets us a sentence to a paragraph in a broader article, saying that global warming claims are sometimes claimed to be alarmist by those attacking them. If it's not a neologism, the bar is much higher for creating its own spinoff. You could reasonably argue that it'd be better merged to, say Media_coverage_of_climate_change, but you CANNOT say the article can stand alone. Also, have you ever looked at Template:Global_warming? There's literally dozens of articles, and there's a whole bunch more (like this one) that aren't even on the template. We don't need a subarticle on every tiny aspect of the rhetoric used. 86.** IP (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Putting in italics and capitals does not make your argument any stronger, it just shows you have strong feelings about it. There's lots of articles because it is a big subject and a lot of interested people. Anyway I thought it was up to people who proposed merge to investigate the suitability of where a merge should go to rather than just come to the conclusion they don't want an article and where it was merged to didn't matter. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement "saying that global warming claims are sometimes claimed to be alarmist by those attacking them" implies (to me) that you think that only skeptics think that way. However, many believers also complain about the alarmist claims. If anything, the article needs to be expanded with examples (exact quotes) of various alarmist views. Perhaps that would also make it clear that this is not a POV fork and that there is no other article that this should be merged to. Q Science (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse close and enforce close. Consensus based on the strength of arguments was clearly that the article should be merged. It is not appropriate for the article's defenders to obstruct and complain about the close simply because they don't like the outcome. During the AfD debate, strong arguments were presented that the article is a POV fork and these were not addressed. S Marshall is absolutely right that we already have too many articles about the global warming controversy. Reyk _YO! 02:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  I see nothing except assertions that it was a fork, that is quite different from strong arguments that it is a fork. I do see arguments that it is not a fork. This whole area is subject to having a whole load of POV warriors on either side and the admins should take that into account and not just count votes. That there are lots of articles on other related things is not relevant, otherwise we'd be removing Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0 for instance because there are lots of Lego articles.

  The points are whether the article is notable which it is, and secondly here whether it is a small article which would be best dealt with in a section of something else, which is what the merges basically said. It simply is not a fork of climate change controversy. It is if anything an aspect of the climate change denial article but could not be put in there as references to alarmism do not mention denial in the same breath. They are not about rational argument about causes consequences and actions which is what the climate change controversy article is mainly about.

  I feel those merges were mainly because they didn't like the article but couldn't validly argue for delete rather than because they thought the subject would be dealt with better merged elsewhere. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse the merge close. For one thing, it was the consensus. For another, it was right. There was definitely not consensus for keeping the article, nor would I expect there to have been, for it's a clear POV fork. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Here is a simple question for you: Since you claim that it is a "clear POV fork", then i'd like you to go to WP:POVFORK, read it, and then show:

  • What content, that this article is a fork of. (make a diff)
  • where content exists that is the same, but with a different POV. (again diff).

  Otherwise your comment here is a bogus argument. You can't just claim "POV fork" and then not qualify that assertion. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn There was no consensus. The argument that CCAlarmism is an obscure phrase while CCDenialism is not, was challenged directly in the AfD yet ignored by the closer. AfD is not a vote so counting up keeps and deletes is WRONG. Greglocock (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. If these articles are meant to be about politics and sociology of science, then it might be useful to know what terms social scientists are discussing. I am starting a review of the literature. I found 46 results for my original WoS search Topic=("climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier)). I find 0 for "climate change alarmism". If not a neologism, it's a discursive trope, doesn't seem to be a notable one of those either. "Alarmism in the literature" is a POV fork of "the literature", in the same way that "anti-abortion arguments" is a POV fork of "abortion debate". Itsmejudith (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's a problem with the denial and alarmism articles. How people use the terms may not correspond exactly with searches, people may say global warming instead or say alarm instead of alarmism and denial or denialism instead of denier. You need to look at a few examples and tune the searches. Also neither of them are about science so searching for them in science databases is not liable to turn up much. The Global warming controversy article is more about the science aspects so you will get more hits in a science abstract for things there. Try "climate change alarm" in google books instead for instance to see how it is used. Dmcq (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Judith, in addition to the above, an article on "alarmism in literature" is not a POV-fork unless it is a POV rewrite of some other article (or section in another article). Do please sit down and read up on what the difference is between WP:Splitting/WP:Content Forking and WP:POVFORK. By claiming POV forking - you are making aspersions towards the editors who've written an article. By your personal definition - these are POV forks of literature: Comparative literature Scientific literature Dystopian literature etc etc. Which i guess/hope isn't your intention. If you still state that it is a POV fork - then please point out, in specifics, which content that this article is a POV rewrite of. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "rewrite" in WP:POVFORK. I've seen lots of examples of good splits and quite a lot of poor ones. The point is that two or more articles are created where one might have been an option (but might have been too long). Logically, splitting doesn't have to involve any rewriting. There could be a History of Ruritania and you could break away Ancient Ruritania and Medieval Ruritania without doing any rewriting, just moving content. It would be a good way to split a long article. But if "History of Ruritania" were split into "Aggressive actions of imperialist Ruritania" and "Heroic defence of our Ruritanian motherland", that would be POV-forking big-time. Obviously nothing anything like that bad has happened here. I am making no aspersions on editor motivation. The comparative literature etc. examples you give above are great examples of good practice in forking. I can give you lots of examples of potential or real poor practice, i.e. POV-forking is a real danger in a whole number of areas. There are probably some good ways to split the Climate change debate article, which indeed is getting long. I will have another look and see if I can make some suggestions. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to "No consensus": AFD is not a vote. The arguments to Keep, while not in the majority, were still well reasoned and persuasive. Persuasive to the point where "No consensus" is the obvious result.– Lionel 23:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Do nothing, at least not here at DRV. The close was reasonable, but AfD can only recommend a merge as a variation on keep, and the merge is subject to review subsequently on the talk page. If the talk page consensus, especially if it is at the target, is to not merge, then the article can be relisted with it noted that merge is not a viable option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly no consensus to merge and the closer appeared to be giving his own opinion of the matter rather than summarising the discussion — a blatant supervote. Warden (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tally of actual votes at Afd

Here are the actual !votes from the Afd, sorted. (I removed one comment, and one "keep" from a suspected sock, made minor topographical changes.) Twelve definite "keeps", and only seven "merge" or "delete or merge". It was a MISSTATEMENT OF FACT to declare "merge" as the "winner", let alone the consensus, per the closing statement. Even counting the "delete" and "merge" votes TOGETHER -- twelve. "Keep" would win on a plurality, but even if all the "non-keep" votes are lumped together it is a split vote. The closing statement was wrong, and the closure was abuse of process. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Keep 76.18.43.253 04:01, 22 Nov
2. Keep Alan Liefting 23:05, 16 Nov
3. Keep Cirt 03:57, 24 Nov
4. Keep Deterence 12:06, 18 Nov
5. Keep Dmcq 09:27, 16 Nov
6. Keep Glynth 22:36, 23 Nov
7. Keep Greglocock 05:33, 16 Nov
8. Keep J. Johnson 18:04, 16 Nov
9. Keep Kauffner 11:11, 16 Nov
10. Keep Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 16 Nov
11. Keep Q Science 07:38, 17 Nov
12. Keep William M. Connolley 08:24, 18 Nov

1. Delete and redirect to GWC WegianWarrior 14:01, 23 Nov
2. Delete AndyTheGrump 04:10, 16 Nov
3. Delete First Light 20:06, 16 Nov
4. Delete IRWolfie- 16:03, 17 Nov
5. Delete Steven J. Anderson 04:31, 16 Nov
6. Delete or selectively merge to GWC Sandstein 21:07, 25 Nov
7. Delete/Merge to GWC Jim 17:38, 21 Nov
8. Strong Delete or Merge Nwlaw63 18:23, 16 Nov
9. Merge to GWC Stvfetterly 19:05, 16 Nov
10. Merge to GWC Chiswick Chap 11:35, 16 Nov
11. Merge to GWC DGaw 04:28, 26 Nov
12. Merge to GWC Itsmejudith 11:43, 16 Nov

It is still the merits of the arguments on the AfD that are relevant - not the votecount. Personally i'd (of course) have chalked it as a keep - but milage of course varies. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

For sure. But as a measure of the persuasiveness of relevant arguments, the vote count shows that the claim of a consensus for "merge" was false. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue here was did the closing admin abuse discretion in interpreting the weight of the !votes (noting one of the "keeps" was marked as being for a "lousy article" which I would consider as being "weak." RJHall said "I can't support a keep" so I suggest his !vote was not "keep" for sure. The IP seems to be very recent - hard to weigh the !vote of a person who has a very short history in WP. So the issue is "was the close egregiously wrong"? And the answer is plainly "no." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly when did Misplaced Pages become a social forum instead of an encyclopaedia? The question in all cases is what is right for the encyclopaedia, not whether an admin was egregiously wrong. This is not a court deciding about an admin whether they are fit to do things or not. This is a deletion review to review a decision which a number of tpeople think was wrong and is most definitely not obviously right. Exactly where in policy is this silly way of doing things established? Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note WP:DELREV which is quite clear:

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Misplaced Pages during the debate..

Seems quite sufficiently clear. It rrequires either that you present reasoning that the closer misinterpreted the debate or that you have "new evidence" of some sort. Too many here seem to just "disagree with the debate's outcome" which is an improper use of this board. Any closing admin should examine the discussion above in light of the board's stated policy, and not look at this as !votes as an "article popularity contest." Collect (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've not seen any evidence here or elsewhere that the closer interpreted the debate at all. My strong impression is that they just imposed their opinion of the matter. The closer does not seem to have responded to this DRV with any clarification or justification of their close and this seems especially telling. Warden (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I said that a number of people think was wrong and was not obviously right. Think the closer interpreted incorrectly is a far cry from egregiously wrong. One is simply a review to see if the evidence should have been interpreted differently. The other is a debate about an admin rather than about the result of a deletion review. It is called a deletion review, not an admin review. Everybody makes mistakes, this is not about covering the asses of admins who make mistakes. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The key words (as Collect quoted from WP:DELREV) are: "if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". And (a minor disagreement with Warden) the closer did interpret the debate when he stated in his closing statement that "The result was merge to Global warming controversy", and in his tag (at Global warming alarmism) that there was "a consensus to merge the content into the article Global warming controversy." If anyone can point to a definite consensus please do so, because if all you can show is votes then merging was a distinctly a minority view. The evidence – such as we have, and as we do not have – is that there was no consensus, and certainly not for "merge"; KoH clearly "interpreted the debate incorrectly". (In addition to hastily and prematurely closing the discussion.) The issue here is about the outcome of the debate only in that that outcome derives solely from an abuse of process. An overly "bold" abuse that ought to be reverted so that substantive discussion may continue. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a response to your specific point about prematurely closing the discussion, it has gone on for 12 days. While it's true that an AfD doesn't have to be closed once time is up, one cannot be faulted for closing an AfD with enough discussion to generate consensus as long as 7 days have elapsed. I can understand your disagreement about the outcome of the close, but the timing of the close is not relevant. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Your understanding of the the deletion process, and particularly of the signficance of "7 days", seems at variance with the published policy. From WP:Deletion_policy#Process_interaction:

An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion.

That "seven days" clearly does not apply. Below that, at WP:DP#Deletion discussion, we have: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days...." (Emphasis added) Note: that is seven days as a minimum. After which deletion may follow "if there is consensus to do so." Also: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." (Emphasis added.) And in the next section: "The review normally lasts for seven days, sometimes longer if the outcome is unclear." This "seven days" is only a minumum. The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:PROD; this is an AfD that is being reviewed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said below, see Misplaced Pages:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed - this whole discussion is based on not having read the relevant instructions to admins. 86.** IP (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Closing admin: I hold no opinion on global warming / climate change. In fact, I haven't been editing articles much recently. As a general habit when closing AfDs, I often state the dominant argument without any qualifiers for the purposes of conciseness: there is no need to state "the delete !voters said this" or "the keep !voters said that" if it's obvious. Hence I might appear to be injecting my personal opinion. I saw that the debate was somewhat close, and if "merge" were not an option (and the !voters in that direction were removed), I might have closed as "no consensus." However, in this AfD I felt that the "keep" !voters did not sufficiently address arguments that the article was a POV fork and otherwise lacking in independent notability. Also, quite a few of them gave invalid reasons like WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Overall, I found that the general idea in the discussion was that there was insufficient coverage to support the scope of this article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding - this makes your thinking clearer. However, you seemed to have missed that the WP:BIGNUMBER issue was prominent because this was one of the nominator's primary arguments. The argument that the article was a POV fork was stated by the nominator to be a secondary argument. Given this framing of the motion, your reading of the discussion seems to have taken it out of context. Warden (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. That the POV fork contention (a secondary issue) is perceived as inadequately addressed is understandable, as that discussion was still in progress when it was arbitrarily closed. If you had thought there was a consensus, or that it the discussion was not going anywhere and should be cut-off, then it would have been better to first state what you thought the consensus is, or a finding of no consensus, and checked for significant objections, before unilaterally proceeding. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be said: the discussion was not arbitrarily closed. See Misplaced Pages:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed - 7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it, as described there. To claim that it's arbitrary is an unfair attack on the closing admin. 86.** IP (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it wasn't arbitrary - that point is correct. But the argument for consensus was wrong. I don't blame the closing admin particularly - he/she was probably in a hurry, and misread/failed to examine the arguments ... to determine consensus when the !votes are split like this, means that you have to either go for "no consensus" or examine the arguments individually. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgement call, and I personally think it's a reasonable one, but the claims that he was out of process for supposedly shutting down the discussion early needed to stop. I'll debate your other points below, but think we should close this part of the discussion, as it's based on a false premise (that the closure was premature). I suggest putting it between {{hat}} and {{hab}}, and pulling out any valid arguments elsewhere. 86.** IP (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately (imho) you misread the discussion.... in that a lot of the argumentation was assertion (and WP:IDONTLIKEIT) rather than based in policy or reality. (the POV fork argument for instance still hasn't been substantiated - even here). If the argument had been based upon a sufficient number of reliable sources, then i would have produced such... but it wasn't... I don't blame you for not looking deeper though, which is also why (i think) that no one in this review has cast any aspersions that way ;) - just that it was a wrong judgement. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. While there's a little new content, the majority of the article is a slanted depiction of the debate. That a small amount of new content appears isn't enough to prevent it from being a POV fork, particularly when said content is based on WP:SYNTH and defining a term which we established isn't in wide use. See WP:COATRACK. 86.** IP (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. You seemingly don't understand what a POV fork is... which is where you go wrong. A POV fork is a deliberate rewrite of some already existing content to a specific POV - thus resulting in forked content (content that exists in two places).... This article does not rewrite any existing content, nor does any similar content exist that describes the same content with a different POV. - and thus cannot be a POV fork.
2. As for your claims of synthesis - you will have to describe exactly what the synthesis is - Since we have, and reference, scholarly articles, that directly link the two major aspects of this subject: "alarmism" + "climate change" (debate). - thus rendering your argument moot. (see hat note below)
3. Addressing your "term" claim... this is apparently based on a misunderstanding that article titles must be entirely based upon phrases in common use. That is not the case. We can demonstrate (with scholarly articles that "alarmism" specifically linked with "climate change" are important aspects of the debate).
4. As for being a coatrack .... I'm sorry? A coatrack for what? (Don't assert! Show). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

86** asserts "7 days had passed, that's when admins are meant to close it", citing WP:AFD#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. Ironically, the shortcut for this section is WP:NotEarly. And the actual text does not say that a discussion must be closed; it says only that after seven days an admin will "assess the discussion for consensus" – nothing more. And note that I do not object to assessing the discussion, I object to this notion that discussion is mandatorily closed after seven days; there simply is no such requirement. If that is unclear, check the lede at WP:AFD: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days , after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus." If that is not clear enough look to WP:Deletion policy, as I have previously cited. As I have said before: The correct criterion for closing discussion is not some number of days, but whether there is consensus. And if no consensus, then no deletion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alessio Rastani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

He has received coverage outside of his original remarks on tv.

• Recieved coverage for his participation in Occupy Londen Metro, Guardian, Independent
• His comments have received continued coverage: Telegraph, Huffington Post.

The continued coverage may be sufficient enough to pass WP:BIO. Smallman12q (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse- in that the closing admin clearly judged the consensus correctly, as it was at the time. If the situation has changed since, then the article can be re-created. Reyk _YO! 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the closing admin's decision. I'm asking if the subject currently is meets notability standards. Smallman12q (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Userfy more-or-less per Reyk. Give the nom the chance to use the existing text as a starting point. Once the new sources are added, it may or may not get sent to AfD, but that's likely the right venue to make the call. There is a reasonable case this now meets our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The close accurately represented the consensus of the discussion. Warden (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you object to userfying (that really should be a word) the article? Hobit (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not able to see the material in question because it has been deleted. The topic only seems to rate a brief mention in European sovereign debt crisis#Media. The person seems to be a self-publicist and so doing more would be contrary to BLP1E. Warden (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)