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 redirect. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climaticide[edit]

Neologism with no evidence of notability or widespread usage. Google returns ~3000 hits, all of which appear to be blogs or forums, nothing remotely like a reliable source. PROD tag removed by author, recommend Delete. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve the article, Climaticide, I have edited it to include additional sources, one of which is Radio France (Not a verifiable source?) and through it LE JOURNAL DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT. (Not a verifiable source?) These are both verifiable sources, which are are not blogs. I must confess to finding the prejudice against all blogs absurd and senseless in any case.

The term climaticide, although of fairly recent vintage, is being adopted at a rapid rate (a Google search yields over ten pages of links in English and French) because it fills a useful niche. Climate change and global warming are broader scientific terms that may refer to pre-human eras or phenomena caused by natural forces. When someone uses the word climaticide, on the other hand, they are clearly referring (whether they accept or reject the concept) to anthropogenic climate change and it's alleged negative consequences.

It seems to me that this specificity of meaning combined with the rapidly growing acceptance of the term in two languages justifies its inclusion in Wikipedia.

After reviewing the complaints against user: Dchall1 I suspect this attempt at deletion of being politically motivated, as the user has a history of editing/deleting articles which contain political positions with which he/she disagrees. Stevendkimball (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom. In checking it out, there may appear to be some reliable sources but I feel that it is not a notable neologism. As you say "is being adopted at a rapid rate" shows a partial violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, blogs are not a reliable source because they can be created by anyone and not verifiable. Just recently, Avril Lavigne convinced news people that she was pregnant through "reliable" blogs. The article is also very much into the relm of original research. --Pmedema (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no reliable sources for use in English, but it claims that the meanings in English and French differ. My Google search gave 126 unique hits; that's not quite widespread use. At most, a redirect to climate change seems in order, a separate article looks like a WP:FORK. Huon (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a catchy made-up word from the blogosphere. I think it will become notable, but it's not there yet. Compare it with other neologisms such as googlebomb, which are already in many published books and articles. Maybe climaticide will be there in a couple of years? --Itub (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is too much about the specific word rather than the topic and so fails WP:DICDEF. It should be redirected to Climate change. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colonel Warden until it gets at least one GoogleNews hit. No content appears in need of merging. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:36, 1 July 2008 (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.