Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RonCram (talk | contribs) at 20:51, 25 May 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:51, 25 May 2007 by RonCram (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear

Exposed: The Climate of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No evidence of notability William M. Connolley 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ahh, you should read it, because it does include commentary on the episode by reliable sources. right there under Critism. Also the article is yet incomplete. I would encorage you all to help add to it. There are 4 sources listed, 3 of which are objectional views by notable "reliable" sources, and the other is from CNN.--Zeeboid 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The blogs are notable, they are used all over the palce and have even wistood other attempts to remove them as non-reliable sources. Sources are not the issue. the lines are quotes from the movie. How would you sugguest they be altered to allow this article to stay?--Zeeboid 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are missing a keep fact. The TV episode itself was subject to review prior to broadcast. There is no reasonable question the show is notable.RonCram 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

you guys still don't get it, do you. According to policy:

The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not.

I HAVE SEEN NO attempts to reach a consensus, just attempts to remove information some don't agree with. those of you with an objection atleast try to appear as if you are following some type of policy and explain how you would fix the article so we can try to reach a "consensus" which as you all know is quite diffrent then majority. according to wikipedia, majority voting is not the determining factor in wether a nomination succeeds or not, so I won't stand for this article's straight up deletion without work to make it better.--Zeeboid 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, how can you argue that an hour-long special on national television is non-notable? See WP:EPISODE. While this article might have tons of content yet, give it time before insta-deleting it. Oren0 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no issue with the content, but if you read WP:EPISODE it says "Avoid excessive trivia and quotations." If the copyright violations are removed, down to a reasonable amount of quotes necessary to sustain any topical sections about the episode (not about the topic!), I dont see anything wrong with keeping it. The form the article is in now, however would require a major rewrite, as most of the content there is unacceptable. -wizzard2k 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What copyright violations are you refering to? I see names of people, their title, and a quote from the documentry...--Zeeboid 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it was nominated here as being non-notable. It's clearly notable. Give it more than two days of existence before you delete it for lack of content. It will build. An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle both demonstrate that you can write about GW-related documentaries without only relying on quotes or delving too deeply into the issue at hand. Oren0 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ask yourself: Will anybody still know what this is in 10 years? In ten months? The average Teletubbies episode will be in syndication, but this will be forgotten as yesterday's news.--Stephan Schulz 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That is a funny standard for "notable" that has never been used before. In ten years time, global warming may well be consigned to the junkyard as an embarrassment to science. RonCram 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't bet on it. But even if, it will still be notable. Even a non-event like global cooling is still notable after 30 years. This TV show is not, and it's unlikely that it ever will be. And I don't know where you Google, but I get less than 40000 hits.--Stephan Schulz
I get more than 72,000. Try this. And, as you know, the PDO turned to the cooler phase last year (a 30 year cycle). The El Nino effect ended in NA in March. April was the coolest April in 46 years. We can expect cooler temps globally for the next 15-30 years.RonCram 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If you google "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" you get more than 72,000 hits. It is strange for someone to say a TV episode creating that much publicity is not notable. The show is being discussed by online news outlets, think tanks, blogs and cable network talk show hosts. It was even discussed by the PR website RealClimate.org. If it was notable enough for William Connolley's colleagues at RealClimate to discuss it, it is notable enough for Misplaced Pages. RonCram 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just a segment of a regular TV show. What's next, an article on every episode of 20/20? No evidence of notability in mainstream sources. Raymond Arritt 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Categories: