Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Loehle

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Loehle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO generally as there do not seem to be multiple independent sources written about the person. The sources in the article are all either WP:SELFPUB, articles he published, or extremely incidental notice that do not highlight the importance of the person. Note also that there may be some WP:SOAP going on at this WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 10:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All sources are either his own work or information about The Heartland Institute, an organization he belongs to; many of those sources about the Heartland Institute don't even mention him directly. Neither membership in an organization or publishing papers makes one qualify for an article by even the most generous interpretation of WP:GNG or WP:42. --Jayron32 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No notability by independent sources, other than passing mention in relation to The Heartland Institute. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Google search did not reveal any sources that pass WP:GNG. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Loehle is a scientist who has worked at research institutes throughout his career. So WP:NPROF is the standard to apply, rather than GNG. And his citation record looks like it passes WP:NPROF C1 — 7000 citations, nearly 20 articles over 100 citations, etc. He is certainly fringe, and the article needs to put the fringe-ness in better context in some places. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced by this argument. C1 states "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and I don't see independent reliable sources really making this claim. Relying on citation metrics alone for an argument is very problematic as it doesn't really speak to the ability for us to write a coherent biography of the subject. If I recall correctly, this is the very reason why WP:NPROF does not explicitly state any threshold for citation numbers for notability. jps (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citing works are independent, generally reliable sources. I believe that a bigger reason that WP:NPROF doesn't (and shouldn't) specify thresholds is that the numbers differ so widely between fields. I compared him with other climate scientists having wikipedia articles, and the numbers looked comparable. I agree that caution is called for on the fringe. I did look through his articles some, and there's a mixture between papers published in Energy and Environment, for which there is cause to be skeptical, and more mainstream-looking journals. He seems to be cited some in the mainstream (though of course he's also brought out by climate skeptics).
      In short, I looked for reasons to treat his citation record as non-notable, and didn't see them. (I've followed this discussion, and will pay attention if others find thoughtful such reasons.) The discussion in the article of the Medawar zone and of his 2007 article (which seems to have been taken seriously enough by the mainstream to push back against) helps bring me over to a keep.
      Certainly any case for delete should discuss WP:NPROF, and I don't see that from the cases made so far. Apologies for writing an essay here! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Because of this 28 Sep 2018 edit made by the subject of the biography expressing his desire to keep a large block of content out of the article, but I could go either way. 5Q5|^✉ 17:07, 24 November 2019 (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.