Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Global Warming Works

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 no consensus. Numerically, opinions are split down the middle, and both sides are making reasonable arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How Global Warming Works

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

Fails the notability critera for a website. Website was launched 2013, on December 16, 2013 it had an article in Salon and NPR and that kicked off a few blog posts in the following few days. Other then that we have a mention by the author of the website (not a secondary source), and some passing mentions. Overall very trivial coverage of a website of a website that has almost no web traffic [1] (and only 37 other sites anywhere on the web that link to the website). The current page appears to mostly just be promotional under #5 "Advertising, marketing or public relations" about a very small website. Obsidi (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see you now believe NPR [2] is a reliable source? I think Scientific American [3] is also a reliable source? Oh yeah, and it was covered in The Washington Post [4]. I forgot, there is also Yahoo! News [5] article on it. All sources in the article when it was nominated. Oops, I just noticed it's covered at Phys.org [6]. I guess it doesn't fail the notability critera for a website after all? I think there is a whiff of Climate change denial in this nomination. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t expect you to agree as the article creator, but I did want to explain myself. Its true, I was hesitant on including the NPR, as it was marked by NPR as a blog (unlike say the news story here). But the Salon post gets its source from the NPR post, so I thought I would include it. The Scientific America is also a blog post, the very next day, which also sources NPR. The Washington Post piece is again a blog post (not a news story), which also links to the NPR post (and mostly just duplicates what is in the NPR post). The Yahoo News is actually from takepart.com [7] an online blog(and of which the website was at best a passing mention), and posted 2 days after the NPR story. Likewise Phys.org is a blog. At best the Phys.org or takepart.com might be called a WP:NEWSBLOG, but even that would be a stretch as they have no actual publication, but more likely I would classify them a group blog and not a reliable source. The NPR/Salon/Washington Post/Scientific America are all be considered WP:NEWSBLOG, but they are also all at about the same time and derived from (and sourced to) the NPR post. No other reliable source, has picked it up in almost a year. (and how about we WP:AGF as to the “climate change denial" accusation?) --Obsidi (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would refer to this in the general notability guideline: "It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." --Obsidi (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make a sound argument, the conclusion must logically follow from the premises. The sources in the article are written by professionals and are independent. I suggest carefully reading the sources, they are not just paraphrases of each other. For example, the author of the Scientific American quoted two paragraphs from the NPR article and the rest is his description of the website and an update on more information provided by the website owner. The website is also recommend in a recent book: McCaffrey, Mark S. (2014). Climate Smart & Energy Wise: Advancing Science Literacy, Knowledge, and Know-How. Sage Publications. p. 192. ISBN 9781483372457. Retrieved 2 November 2014. The article is not promotional, it neutrally states what is in the sources. So, I fail to understand the policy motivation for this nomination. It's best now to let others decide. I have nothing more to say. I am One of Many (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually notice that book when I went looking for sources before I posted this, but a single sentence mentioning the website in passing I considered to be a trivial mention. And the Scientific American update cant be used to say that it is notable as it is from the author of the website and not independent source. I will wait to see if others agree that the sources are published at the same time and are "relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information" or not. --Obsidi (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not even remotely promotional and the website it describes meets the general notability guideline. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe website provides aggregation for a small set of youtube videos and is not notable beyond the marketing conducted in time to the release of said videos. The Wikipeida page provides marketing feedback and an added credential. I personally believe this represents a fundamental misuse of this venue. --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks to me to be a one-trick pony; someone who developed a cute video to explain global warming in less than a minute. Even the Scientific American link is from a blog post that is not under their editorial governance. Basically, this was news for a short time in December, 2013. LaMona (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It received coverage in multiple independent sources, and is not a case of 109PAPERS because the topic is of continuing interest. For notability it's not required to have a steady stream of new sources every month. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It doesn't seem to meet WP:WEBCRIT for multiple independent in-depth coverage: lots of cites possible, but many seem to be redistributions of same story and/or heavily reliant on self-reported aspects, or is not in depth, or is in "soft" references (for example, blogs or opinion pieces in major sources do not automatically inherit high reliability because of their "in major sources" aspect). Sammy1339 is right that on-going coverage is not required, but neither is it sufficient that the underlying topic is of continuing interest (the article is about this specific website, not global warming). DMacks (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DMacks I created the article in good faith. I researched it for a couple of days and came to the conclusion that it was important enough in the scientific community to warrant an article. I think this article further supports the notable coverage within science: I think this article further supports that view Hall, Shannon (6 January 2014). "Global Warming Explained in 52 Seconds". Universe Today. Retrieved 8 November 2014. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) I don't think this article should be judged by its popularity with the general public, but rather by it notability in its science news coverage. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that Universe Today is a group blog and not a WP:RS. --Obsidi (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Obviously I was referring to the website being of continuing interest, not the fact of global warming. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that I found the website as a video resource for Chapter 9 in Perspectives on International Relations Power, Institutions, and Idea by Henry R. Nau, published by Sage Publications. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention, contains one sentence about the website "This website features five videos that explain the mechanism behind global climate change in less than five minutes." --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a short article in the Eugene Weekly (I found using Bing) by Camilla Mortensen who is associate editor of the newspaper: Mortensen, Camilla (16 December 2014). "How global warming works". Eugene Weekly. Retrieved 8 November 2014.

A WP:NEWSBLOG posted a few hours after the NPR story. Add this to the NPR/Salon/Washington Post/Scientific America list, but sufficiently simultaneous and without any additional new sources or information. --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article from The Guardian that uses the website to explain global warming: Nuccitelli, Dana (24 June 2014). "Why we care about the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 November 2014.

Almost not even a passing mention of the website, just links to it. --Obsidi (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While there's some good coverage in December 2013-January 2014, the coverage from February to now appears pretty weak -- barely scrapes by on GNG grounds, I think. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notability, the site is on a very controversial subject. The news cycle will come back to the topic and the site will get more traffic. Notability doesnt vanish, if it did articles on old events would be deleted left and right. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is one of those articles where notability is not crystal clear with cogent arguments on both sides of the debate. In such cases I usually favor giving the benefit of the doubt to the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable. Page name is alone is very debatable. Meatsgains (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, the reason for deletion is the Global warming is not notable and the name of the article (the same as the website) is debatable? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is saying the subject as in the website is not notable. Subject in an AFD usually refers to the subject of the article (the thing the article is about). My guess the problem with the title he is suggesting is that normally with a title like this Wikipedia is saying that this is "how global warming works" in which would be a detailed description of how global warming works with links to scientific papers would be appropriate. Instead maybe "How Global Warming Works (website)" might be a more appropriate title for this page. (like this page: The Federalist (website)) --Obsidi (talk) 11:44, 25 November 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.