Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Audit

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 of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Audit

NN blog run by NN person; approx. 300 google hits, many of which are unrelated Paul 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alexa rank well below 100,000 which probably means the creator of the website has Alexa on his computer. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable blog. Nothing obvious to commend it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. 20,000 google hits for climateaudit (one word), and the author's scientific work has recieved substantial press. The blog itself has been mentioned by the Wall Street Journal [1] and the United Press International [2]. Dragons flight 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- JJay 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Climateaudit" (one word) gets 207 unique Google hits; [3] not sure if a mention in the WSJ etc. warrants keeping (unless the deletion policy explicitly says otherwise) If the author is respected/notable, make an article about him and mention his blog. WP:NOT a place for promoting blogs. Paul 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a technical error, and a very common one. Google only ever returns the top 1000 results, from those 1000 it removes some group of redundant results (which are apparently 80% in this case). That says nothing at all about the other 19000 reported results. For comparison, Microsoft which manages 745 million pages only produces 369 unique results [4]. Dragons flight 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about the specifics of Google and its search results, but even if there are however many thousand results, if the writer of the blog is notable then there should be a page on him with mention of climateaudit (not a page on climateaudit with a mention of him). Thanks for the explanation Paul 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, as it turns out he's had a biography stub for the last 16 months at Stephen McIntyre, but his name was misspelled here as "Steven". Dragons flight 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: CA is a blog; as such most of its posts and comments link to itself; with "keep dups" turned on, googles first 1000 hits seem to be 99% CA pointing to itself [5]. I suggest google isn't telling us anything useful (one way or the other). William M. Connolley 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    • Hmmmm, well google has the answer to that too, one can search with "-site:climateaudit.org" to exclude self references. Doing so puts the results under 1000 [6] (can CA really have 19000 references to itself? Bizarre.) Anyway, given this, I wouldn't be overly upset if it were merged into McIntyre's article. I think over all I'd still prefer having the seperate article though. Dragons flight 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn blog. Stifle 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's too small a subject to deserve a separate article, but the info should stay of course, in some other article(s). DirkvdM 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Wikipedia is not paper, Brendanfox 10:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (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.