Deletion of Runaway climate change

Comment: massive |original research, not based not upon common denominator or concept. Even where known concepts are used, they are |synthesized into something that is unrecognizable, when checking with the references. Where science sources are used, they are cherry-picked, with no |weighting. Its basically pseudoscience at this point. The suggestion that it should be based upon what media says, seems to be a suggestion that entails that the main writer can now pick and choose amongst the most alarming and least scientific sources that can be found. We've tried to salvage, and to find some sort of common footstep. But to no avail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: to the appropriate article on Effects of global warming. This looks like a rehash of material more properly covered there, a case of , I believe. The term itself is a rather trivial extrapolation from the current debate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: for the time being.  I can understand William M. Connolley's viewpoint, and I share the concern that this could become a content fork.  However, there ''are'' sources and it does satisfy the  and  criteria, which means I don't feel able to support an immediate "delete" on an article that's still clearly a work in progress. I'd like to reserve judgment until I can see it in a more final form. -- I feel it'll be very important to monitor this article for non-NPOV material appearing, so I'll put it on my watch list and would encourage others to do the same
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)