Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Climate change alarmism (2nd nomination) - 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 Greglocock (talk | contribs) at 03:42, 29 November 2011 (Brain flub or alien mind attack?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:42, 29 November 2011 by Greglocock (talk | contribs) (Brain flub or alien mind attack?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 merge to Global warming controversy. While the general topic is notable, there are hardly any reliable sources supporting the use of the term "climate change alarmism." There is a significant opinion that this is a POV fork of Global warming controversy, so cautious merge to that article is in order. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE! Just where did we reach consensus to merge? I see a bunch of comments, but not (yet) any consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 23:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, someone please take this one straight to contested closes, that is a ridiculous summary. KoH what were you thinking? Greglocock (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Climate change alarmism

AfDs for this article:
Climate change alarmism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have two big articles on the subject - Global warming controversy and Climate change denialism, besides Global warming and a host of others. This article brings nothing whatsoever new to the table, and is pretty much a WP:DICDEF with a little added, but redundant, content.

To give some numbers to show the term is not widely used, 78,800 ghits, 2 news hits, and 29 google scholar. These numbers are not so large that they justify an article on the term itself - and that's presuming they all use the same definition, which is doubtful. All other content beyond the definition (and mentioning it's used to attack people) is either questionably sourced, synthesis, or redundant to the big three articles.

There are secondary issues: this is (arguably) a WP:POVFORK, and the text appears to be WP:SYNTH, mixed in with some dodgy sources.

I'd suggest it be deleted and redirected to global warming controversy. 86.** IP (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. A "critical description of a rhetorical style" is hardly a fit subject for an encyclopaedia, even disregarding to issues over forking, synthesis etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep-Lousy article, real subject, bogus argument those hit numbers are within a factor of 3ish as for climate change denialism(264000, 5, 36), but of course given wikipedia groupthink on the subject I wouldn't dream of nominating that article. Greglocock (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Plus 14 books. The article is clearly notable and whilst it isn't going to get nominated for good article any day soon the article is well within Misplaced Pages's standards for style and coverage. The controversy article mainly deals with dialogue about the science and its implications, when you get to alarmism or denial you're way past dialogue. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • keep - proposers reasons don't add up, POVFORK arguments are wrong (it isn't) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep It should be renamed climate alarmism, which gets 301 results on Google News. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • MERGE to Global warming controversy and Climate change denialism. This is a blatant POV FORK. It is right the arguments on both sides are aired, but no need for yet more articles on the same content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge to Global warming controversy (I thought that before seeing Chiswick Chap's !vote). I have found 86.IP to be very helpful and have encouraged him/her to set up an account and carry on editing; in any case we vote on the substance not on the editor behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) Per Dmcq's comments, it may not be beautiful, and may be only a minor aspect of the the whole controversy, but it is a distinct issue in its own right. 2) Google hits are not appropriate for measuring relative merit. 3) Editor behaviour is an issue where tendentious and disruptive, and tends to have no effect other than generating massive, puerile controversy of no consequence, distracting the rest of us from working on actual improvements. To which I will add 86's attempt to unilaterally redirect the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete or Merge This is a blatant POV fork that deals in synthesis and false equivalencies. Any relevant material can be added to global warming controversy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge. Global warming controversy covers this topic already, anything new in this article should be added there.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Erh? Where exactly does GWC cover this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, its a description of social reactions/attitudes towards the scientific aspects of the topic, just as Climate change denial is such a reaction on the other end of the spectrum. Since when do we only cover hard-science aspects of things? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
However, this isn't a test on some general topic - this article is redundant to the main Global warming articles in every way except the potential of the neologism being notable. The google checks show the neologism is not in wide use. Hence, the article is merely a WP:POVFORK. This is not a notable part of the global warming controversy, it's just an ill-defined term used rhetorically by a few writers. 86.** IP (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a problem with your argument: Neither Global warming and/or Global warming controversy address this topic - using or claiming usage of exaggerations as a policy methodology. Do check. As for rhetorical, please check the very first reference, where it is not used as a rhetorical argument/term. "climate change" is well defined, "alarmism" is well defined, and we have plenty of references that describe and examine the combination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not a argument. If the article is a WP:POVFORK, length doesn't matter. 86.** IP (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete (Edit: most of the arguments for the keep appear to be based around quoting search engine hits which flies in the face of WP:GOOGLEHITS.) It doesn't appear to be notable as a term. Do any of the sources in the article even use the term? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
You mean you haven't checked? Not a very good argument is it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I checked several of them but not every single one, it seems someone went ahead and did that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick check of the references from the article indicates that the term "Climate Change Alarmist" is not widely used even in the article's sources:
  • - Has a section about alarmism but does not use the term 'climate change alarmism', or 'climate alarmism' anywhere.
  • "Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism', or even 'alarmism'.
  • "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarmism' in the article.
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • "Irish Independent Article" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or 'alarmism' in the quoted section
  • "It's curtains for global warming" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • The National Post quote mentions 'global warming alarmist' and 'ice-age alarmist' but does not use the term 'climate change alarmism/alarmist'
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarm'
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism'
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarm' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article or even 'alarm' in the article
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere in the article
but the article is titled "Top hurricane forecaster calls Al Gore a "gross alarmist"" Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere in the article
but it does discuss "the alarmist camp" Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The one instance where I could find something similar was here:
  • mentions 'Climate Alarm' twice and 'Climate Alarmism' twice.
'Climate change alarmism' really doesn't seem to be a notable term. Regards,
--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I randomly checked 3 of the articles above. One was behind a paywall, for the other 2, I inserted a comment. It appears that alarmism, and its related derivatives, are used in the articles. What phrase do you think describes this position better than 'climate change alarmism'? Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Article/topic titles do not have to be included in the references for them to be used as references. If you look at the first reference - you will find that it has a section specifically about "alarmism" in the very specific context of "climate change". The whole "neology" argument is a strawman, since that "requirement" implicitely states that all of our articles on Misplaced Pages have to have a title that you can find in a dictionary. How many of our featured articles would fall on this "requirement?" (randomly chosen featured article example: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany)
What is the question here is whether or not alarmism is a notable concept in the context of climate change ... and that it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Well the references do have to deal with the topic but that doesn't mean the exact same term must be used. I checked a couple of references that they said did not mention alarmism. The first said alarmist and the next alarm. I'm fairly happy that is close enough. Dmcq (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dmcq (above). The philosophy of climate change alarmism is clearly a more extreme form of climate change advocacy that deserves its own classification, in much the same way that Stalinism is a more extreme form of Socialism deserving of its own classification. Extreme caution is required whenever one of the belligerents (of either side) in this highly contentious subject proposes censoring terminology/articles/content from Misplaced Pages. The POV-pushing agenda behind this nomination/censorship could hardly be more obvious. Deterence 12:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge to Global warming controversy. When people begin throwing charges of Stalinism at other users, it's clear that political motives have taken over in the discussion. The article is a POV fork, pure and simple. News coverage is not a good indicator of whether it is a POV fork. Let's take an example: If a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, we will not create an article called "The Bombing of Twin Towers by Bush Administration". Instead we will discuss the conspiracy theory in the original article and whether it has merit. By allowing this politically charged topic to exist as an independent article in the first place, we are implicitly acknowledging its validity. This is dangerous and completely unnecessary. JimSukwutput 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    In other words: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Btw. we do have such a 9/11 article - it just has a more sensible name: 9/11 conspiracy theory. (your argument might've had merit if the article was about X's climate change alarmism instead of general coverage, just as the 9/11 one.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    For your information, I very much believe that "climate change alarmism" exists and is a serious issue. So if I were to act solely based on my political views, as many commentators here seem to, I would vote for a "keep". But I'm willing to recognize that this is not just a battleground for politics. This is a matter of upholding one of the basic principles of Misplaced Pages. And I'm not so narcissistic about my personal beliefs that I would wikilawyer my way around basic principles just to get my viewpoint across. JimSukwutput 20:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    It has nothing to do with politics.--- Misplaced Pages has articles on subjects that are notable (which you allow for), and which has reliable sources describing it (again you seem to allow for that). Yours or my political stance towards a particular issue, is 100% irrelevant, in fact, it is antithetical to Misplaced Pages's NPOV pillar, to even consider this an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    I do not believe you are putting any effort into trying to comprehend my comments. JimSukwutput 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    Either i have grasped what it is that you are trying to say, or you are saying it in a way that is too obtuse for me to comprehend. Our feelings about an article is not an argument for or against deletion. The only relevant thing is whether it is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep There are lots of neologisms on Misplaced Pages, so let it ride. The term has seen some use, the article is sourced. No reason to be a WP:HATER. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Global warming controversy - what's salvageable can be merged into that as well. Looks to be mostly a POW fork, mixed in with a bit or OR and synthesis. What remains is duplication of whats found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dmcq is right, and you can't delete this and keep Climate change denial. That's clear agenda-pushing. Perhaps merge both of them into something else but that's not the proposal here, now is it? The term absolutely is notable, though honestly "environmental alarmism" is the more common term (and it's more broad). -- Glynth (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That's a clear WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and is invalid. Look at the one up now, don't make claims about other articles. 86.** IP (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I wouldn't mind nominating Climate change denial for deletion myself once this gets deleted. Both articles are clear POV forking. JimSukwutput 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
For an article to be a WP:POVFORK:
  1. another article must exist that describes the same, just with another POV
  2. the article must not adhere to WP:NPOV.
Now the question i have to ask is: What article would that be? (hint: It is not global warming controversy, since that article doesn't touch upon this subject). And the other question is: What part of the article is in breach of NPOV? The question is still: Is this a notable subject, and does enough material exist to merit an article on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
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.