Deletion of Climate change denial

Comment: Benzocane's argument above is as i see it extremely valid. The Talk page is full of people trying to dispute the article based upon . I personally think that there is a bit too much finger-pointing in it currently (ie. Exxon) - but i'm certain that the widely varied opinions of the editors, and the people voting here, will ensure a thoroughly neutral article on the subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: for now, but leaning toward '''Keep'''. The term is in common use,  including the mainstream press.http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1876541,00.htmlhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-another-grim-tale-to-be-treated-with-respect/2007/07/08/1183833338608.html. In the U.S., the closely-related term "global warming denial" is used.http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/GlobalWarmingSteigerwald/main.asphttp://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/323181_joel11.html (For some reason the term "global warming" tends to be prevalent in the U.S. while "climate change" has the same meaning in other English-speaking countries.) The concept thus is |notable and is not a neologism; my concern is that the relevant information may be getting fragmented across too many articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I have several problems with the article. The first stems from arbitrary differentiation of a climate change skeptic and a climate change denier. The premise that a skeptic is one who scientifically questions global warming and that a denier is one who is doing so because they're being paid to do so (particularly from the "energy lobby") is based off one quote from a journalist. Second, I feel the main portion of the articles relies too heavily on what the tobacco industry did. I've also inquired in the talk page about the bit on both Cheney and the NEPDG, which the article seems to make very little or no connection between their actions and climate change denial as it is defined therein. I've also questioned how the article will be able to differentiate between those who spread "disinformation" because they don't know better and those who do so because they're being paid to do so. Lastly, there may be problems with |synthesis where the article makes the argument that a individual or corporation received funds from an energy company and the same individual or corporation questions parts of the IPCC conclusion, so they are therefore doing so because they're paid by the energy company, without any concrete evidence or at least reliable source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)