Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropogenic global warming

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 redirect to Global warming. Mango juice^talk 16:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropogenic global warming

Yet another bizarre cruft filled essay about global warming, scientific consensus, etc.. used to be a redirect, either delete, or redirect and protect--172.162.149.247 15:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convert back to the redirect that it used to be. Atlant 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming, which discusses the topic in detail. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to redirect to global warming. Hardern 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been redirected without discussion. It's a small article, but I can see room for development. Should the redirect be undone until discussion has finished? BalfourCentre 15:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming. I mistakenly placed the redirect message on top of the AFD notice. I have corrected it now. We already have an article about global warming controversy, so we don't need another article critical about the global arming consensus. Count Iblis 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect per above. --PresN 16:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not critical of the "global warming consensus" or anything else. If it were, that would be an NPOV violation (a one-sided "criticism of" article. This, rather, is a balanced article which takes no sides on the controversy over how much global warming is caused by people. --Uncle Ed 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What then does this article add to the global warming controversy article? Count Iblis 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to GW. Yet another bizarre and pointless Ed Poor POV fork; what a waste of time William M. Connolley 17:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If your definition of POV fork is the same as Wikipedia:POV fork, then your opinion of the Anthropogenic global warming article is really different from mine. I intended it to suppport NPOV policy, not to evade it. Was there anything in the article that looked biased to you? --Uncle Ed 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course my opinion of AGW article is different to yours. And of course you intended to support NPOV policy. Its just that over GW, you're incapable of writing neutrally, or of learning that. This article is pointless. Everything in it is already far better covered by global warming, as you know full well William M. Connolley 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This topic will either be redundant or a dictdef, neither of which are useful. Dragons flight 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. The topic is covered extensively in Global warming; this article will simply create a fork. Srose (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Clear attempt at a POV fork from guess who? Delete as POV fork if redirect not restored. FeloniousMonk 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how it is a POV fork? I intended it to be a neutral spinoff of one aspect of global warming, something like Attribution of recent climate change. --Uncle Ed 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed: Which aspect? Aren't you the one who says a title shouldn't presuppose things? Your title implicitely assumes "anthropogenic global warming" and the article then goes on and tries to use "balanced" language ("some advocates", "others") while withholding the fact that "some advocates" is essentially the whole scientific community ("advocates" - WTF?), while "others" is a small group of lost souls and a bunch of pundits, lobbyists and politicians. "Some people think Mahatma Gandhi was just some dirty nigger, while some others disagree". The alleged topic of the article is handled extensively in a number of other articles. --Stephan Schulz 17:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

restore the redirect or delete - don't need another POV fork. Vsmith 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect crandles 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect POV fork, unneeded second article, cruft-esk... --TeaDrinker 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how AGW is a different article than GW; unless you presume that present warming is not anthropogenic. However to make such a presumption is inherently pov. It seems to be an attempt to alter the consensus view on GW, with no other reasonable purpose, hence it is appears to be a pov fork. --TeaDrinker 16:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro says, "There is some controversy (chiefly among public policy advocates) as to whether natural variation or the human contribution is a larger factor in the modern global warming." This is a perfectly neutral and accurate statement, since Lindzen, Singer and other sceptics dispute the mainstream view. --Uncle Ed 17:35, 2 August 2006 (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.