Deletion of Climate change exaggeration

Comment: Based on the comments above there appears to be sufficient reliable material to expand the article and it provides a reasonable counter-point to balance Climate change denial and bring things to a more 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: First of all, the article isn't about exaggeration (or alarmism), and hasn't been at any point in its brief history. It rather seems to be a  for various "embarrassing" items relating to climate change, the first section is almost entirely on errors/inaccuracies that doesn't seem to have been described anywhere as exaggerations (or alarmism) - most (if not all) of these are good faith errors - instead of exaggerations. Now there might be a place for a well-researched article on climate alarmism, if a sufficient number of journalistic or scholarly articles can be found for this topic, but this article doesn't even attempt to move there. Secondly the errors in the first section are almost entirely POV versions of items in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, as well as a few cherry-picks. This is (as others have said) a clear  fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:POV)

Comment: Any criticisms or errors in IPCC reports can be recovered in articles on the IPCC or whoever; the assertion that any of these errors constitute alarmism or exaggeration is pure |original research and a fringe POV often propogated by GW skeptics who wish to discredit the AGW hypothesis. Global warming denialism is completely different, as it is a term used in scholarly literature and a cultural phenomenon in its own right. Also, the USNEWS piece ''is'' a blog. Also, delete Global warming alarmism. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Though it might be renamed to Climate change alarmism (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=eGU&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&q=%22Climate+change+alarmism%22&btnG=Zoeken&meta=&aq=f&oq= 52000 hits) being the exact opposite of Climate change denial. I've heard our (Dutch) Minister of Environment claiming on national TV that "the world might come to an end within 30 years". This highly educated person wasn't talking about hungry polar bears but an actual "end of the world" which even the IPCC would deem ridiculous. This psychological phenomenon of people making outrageous claims in the area of climate change they must know aren't true certainly deserves a lemma. I guess in other areas it's called suspension of disbelief but that would probably violate  :). (also amazed that this article got listed here within 16 minutes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Clear POV fork. Seems to also be y to complain about Climate change denial. Personally I'd remove climate change denial as well as I think the material about businesses funding opposition can go into the Climate change consensus article without making it unduly bigf or losing the plot. However that something else exists is not a good reason to have this blatant duplicate article with a point of view title
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: or merge)  Don't use phrases like this as names of articles unless they are legitimate terms of art
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: If Wikipedia is going to have a climate change denial article, then this seems only fair.   is not a valid excuse to delete a Wikipedia article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as  fork|POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: WP:SYN|original synthesis/|POV fork, with insufficient evidence of notability in its own right to justify an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Sorry but this is not even close, and those supporting this need to get a lot more convincing than "clearly a valid topic" and the like if they want to avoid deletion. The lead sentence tells us that "Climate change exaggeration is a set of beliefs which overstates the effects of climate change." Really, according to whom? Because if we are going to title an article by a given term we should not be defining it based on the perception of one editor (which is exactly what is happening here, and that's why this is |original research). But let's actually look at the references, surely there we'll find reliable sources that define the term "Climate change exaggeration" as we do in the lead sentence. Source one, a US News story, does not have the word "exaggeration" in it (thus it does not back up this phrase) though it does speak to an exaggeration by a climate scientist (this is literally the only source that does). It does not refer to "Climate change exaggeration" (or anything similar) as a term or a phenomenon, it just says one guy made a claim based on little or no data and later admitted it. The Reuters story talks about a simple error, something which was "wrongly stated" and which related to the percentage of the Netherlands under sea level. So it's not an "exaggeration", it's a mistake, and it's not even about climate change, it's about European geography. The NYT article is about an ill-advised slide that Al Gore used to use in his slideshow (the article does not say he was ''trying'' to exaggerate), but also about an error by AGW skeptic George Will&mdash;i.e. the subject of the articles is errors/exaggerations on both sides, not solely among those who "overstate the effects of climate change" as our "article" says. The fourth footnote is about a poll that says many people think global warming is exaggerated. Surveys also say that many people think football is too violent, ''American Idol'' is not worth watching, and Disneyworld is more fun than EuroDisney (or is it the other way around?), but we don't have articles on those things, I guess because public opinion polls are not a good basis for an article, despite Grundle's repeated claims above. The fifth footnote supports one of the most ridiculous, /SYNTHish sentences ever, as it points out that kids are scared of global warming (and from that the reader should, I suppose, conclude that the exaggerators are evil, scaring the kids!). Obviously it does not establish that "Climate change exaggeration" is some known, discussed phenomenon. Neither do the http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Climate+change+exaggeration%22 ''five total hits'' on the phrase in a Google News archive search, all of which seem to refer to the NYT article that happens to say "Climate Change, Exaggeration" in its title (compare with http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Climate+change+denial%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a over 500 for a search on "Climate change denial"&mdash;see the difference?). In short, there are no reliable sources in the article that establish that there is an observed and discussed phenomenon called "Climate Change Exaggeration" (or any similar name). Some people think climate science is exaggerated, of course, but climate change controversy (and probably elsewhere) is a perfectly fine place to discuss that viewpoint. I'm afraid it's unsurprising that this article was written by the same person who gave us the quickly deleted Michelle Obama's arms, among other bits of egregious original research, and hopefully this one will soon go the same way. The !keep comments are completely unconvincing so that seems likely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: to Global warming controversy. The title is probably a valid search term, but it is a poor title for an article as it implies that the climate change predictions are indeed exaggerated, causing all sorts of  problems. The global warming/climate change issue has enough political controversy to justify one article, but hardly enough to justify 6-7 articles, each titled with a different term used by global warming skeptics
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)