Why is this page being considered for deletion? Doug Mattens ( talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
meganinja202 ( talk) - I wonder if there is a way to have a consensus in bring the article back (or at least a possible alternative to list prominient global warning deniers), I think that way that the deletion happened may cause a demage for the neutral image and status of wikipedia , not mentioning the use of some media (the bias of such medias doesnt comes account, but such medias can influence general public opinion) to desquelify the entire wiki due this deletation, what ,in my opinion, is really bad for transmission of truth and knowledgement, benefiting fake news and misinformation
Reading the last November discussion, i noticied that there were people that talked about the referencies and souces problem, i am sure that should have at least some sources that can proof that exist some scientists that are agnaist the idea of a global warning, if even the Scientific consensus on climate change says that arent exactly 100% but something around 98%, then i guess that the 2% also should have a space to be heared (and critizied) as well as the 98% have been
If is not possibile create something equal as the original, then at least i ask for a alternative instead, something that keep the idea of neutrality for the wiki i am not even a denier, i also belive that climate change is a problem, but i just think that the way that deletion happened goes aganist the idea of neutrality of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganinja202 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As a point of interest, there seems to be a second talk page for this deletion discussion.
(I guess it's in article-talk space instead of wikipedia-talk?)
Why is this page being considered for deletion? Doug Mattens ( talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
meganinja202 ( talk) - I wonder if there is a way to have a consensus in bring the article back (or at least a possible alternative to list prominient global warning deniers), I think that way that the deletion happened may cause a demage for the neutral image and status of wikipedia , not mentioning the use of some media (the bias of such medias doesnt comes account, but such medias can influence general public opinion) to desquelify the entire wiki due this deletation, what ,in my opinion, is really bad for transmission of truth and knowledgement, benefiting fake news and misinformation
Reading the last November discussion, i noticied that there were people that talked about the referencies and souces problem, i am sure that should have at least some sources that can proof that exist some scientists that are agnaist the idea of a global warning, if even the Scientific consensus on climate change says that arent exactly 100% but something around 98%, then i guess that the 2% also should have a space to be heared (and critizied) as well as the 98% have been
If is not possibile create something equal as the original, then at least i ask for a alternative instead, something that keep the idea of neutrality for the wiki i am not even a denier, i also belive that climate change is a problem, but i just think that the way that deletion happened goes aganist the idea of neutrality of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganinja202 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As a point of interest, there seems to be a second talk page for this deletion discussion.
(I guess it's in article-talk space instead of wikipedia-talk?)