The result was delete, tendentious POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I leave it to the administrators decide but I certainly don't feel as though I was canvassed about this AfD. I only became aware of it because of the template on the article which is the normal process. -- GoRight ( talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Not the right place for this discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think all articles on the subject must be listed under a title of Climate change debate because all are theories right now anyways, even Climate change and Global Warming, which are debatable. BLUE DOG TN 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply
|
It still looks like an op ed to me. From the lede: "Climate change exaggeration as science can relate to scientific fraud, or a more innocent confirmation bias. As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing. There is a psychological dimension as well."' Whoever wrote this isn't even trying to be subtle.
Not an article but an essay, and a POV fork at that. Having seen what the "improvers" have in mind for it, I'm more than ever convinced that it cannot ever become a Wikipedia article. -- TS 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, tendentious POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply
I leave it to the administrators decide but I certainly don't feel as though I was canvassed about this AfD. I only became aware of it because of the template on the article which is the normal process. -- GoRight ( talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC) reply
Not the right place for this discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think all articles on the subject must be listed under a title of Climate change debate because all are theories right now anyways, even Climate change and Global Warming, which are debatable. BLUE DOG TN 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply
|
It still looks like an op ed to me. From the lede: "Climate change exaggeration as science can relate to scientific fraud, or a more innocent confirmation bias. As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing. There is a psychological dimension as well."' Whoever wrote this isn't even trying to be subtle.
Not an article but an essay, and a POV fork at that. Having seen what the "improvers" have in mind for it, I'm more than ever convinced that it cannot ever become a Wikipedia article. -- TS 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply