Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lukewarmer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukewarmer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason for nomination.... Classic poorly-defined WP:Neologism NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on what I said in a recent discussion: The article as it currently stands defines the term very narrowly to include only people "who question the scientific opinion on climate change, but not the part of it that says that human CO₂ is the main cause of it--the only part they question is either how much should happen or how bad the consequences will be." This is a particular political stance, that the article goes on to say is exemplified by Matt Ridley, Greg Gutfeld, Anthony Watts, Peter Lilley. Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Judith Curry, Roy W. Spencer, and Mitt Romney. Now, I don't know enough about American politics to know the opinions of many of those people off hand, but I find it very unlikely that we can safely define a neologism ourselves around this mixed group of people, let alone the idea that it is even scientifically literate to question is either how much global warming "should happen" or how bad the consequences of it will be. --Nigelj (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We don't need to "define it ourselves"--the current definition (which I have changed since you posted the above comment) is clearly supported by some of the citations. And if you have lots of reliable sources that say that lukewarmerism is tantamount to denying scientific evidence, you can and should not only add them, but also change the article to reflect this. Alternatively, we could convert this into a section in Climate change denial if it is really just a form of that. Jinkinson talk to me 15:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment the article claims it means

(A) you agree that human CO2 causes at least 1/2

(B) or instead, without commenting on the cause, you think warming is no big deal,

(C) or instead, that they generally agree with all of it, but downplay it.

There are other flavors of definition that have been reverted (by me mostly). Until one demonstrates "stick" it is a political label looking for a stable meaning. Our platform should not be abused to create that stable meaning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this for the same reasons I gave for deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination). It has too many possible definitions. Add in WP:Neologism and that weighs even more heavily towards deletion. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Sailsbystars. This is not yet a ripe term for inclusion. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary using the template {{Wiktionary redirect}}. (Note that I created that page too specifically so I could suggest this.) Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per N&EG above, it is a nonce word that gets freshly (re)defined whenever it is used—and it isn't used very often. Incidentally, Jinkinson's attempt to preserve the entry on Wikipedia by creating an unsourced Wiktionary entry (wikt:Lukewarmer) isn't cool, and is disrespectful of the volunteers over there who will have to tidy up after him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

omg, talk about trust and forumshop issues..... that wiktionary entry was created by jinkinson at 18:59, 19 March 2014‎, after his first three edits to this AFD. I don't know about wiktionary culture. Do we need to do some kind of AFD or cross-ref over there?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. TOAT actually has the gall to say that I don't know how to edit Wiktionary (which is true because I essentially never do this), that I'm just trying to be selfish and don't care about what other people need to do in order to make it compliant with Wiktionary's policies. But of course it's me who's being disrespectful, not him. The real reason I created the Wiktionary page was because I thought that since it clearly isn't notable here, it would be notable there due to their purpose being defining individual words, not giving them an encyclopedic treatment. I think TOAT should apologize to me (and NAEG too for endorsing what he said), but of course I don't expect empathy of any kind from people I've never met and who know nothing about me in real life. BTW, "forum shopping" doesnt apply here because Wiktionary's policies are fundamentally different from our own, and WP:FORUMSHOP itself defines it as "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards." What I did, though was change the issue from is it notable here to is it notable on Wiktionary. Thanks for nothing, everyone. (Also, if someone wants to remove a huge chunk of this because it's "trolling" or something, I apologize, and you should feel free to do so.) Jinkinson talk to me 16:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyers care about the letter of things like FORUMSHOP. Genuine partners care more about the spirit of things. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You don't want this to have a page anywhere, you got it. I would tag the wiktionary page for deletion, but the edit filter won't let me, so I've asked an admin there to delete it. God knows when he'll respond, though. I certainly won't try to create pages on Wiktionary anymore, that's for sure! Jinkinson talk to me 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It's gone. I hope you're all happy. Now that that's off the table, then, I have become convinced that this page should be deleted because it is too hard to come up with a specific definition. This is because differentRSs define it in very different ways. Jinkinson talk to me 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO - as shown above, there's not really a set definition anyways. ansh666 04:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.