Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Climatic Research Unit study

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 keep. X clamation point 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Climatic Research Unit study

(now called 2008 study on polar warming, BTW William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article is a summary of news briefs about one science paper that received modest coverage in the popular press. However, WP is not a collection of news reports; WP:NOT#NEWS, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. While the sources are verifiable, I do not think this topic merits its own article, and should be deleted. At the very least, the scientific information should be merged into Polar climate. Atmoz (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems like a reasonably well sourced article on a published study that received media attention, and is therefore notable. Not really seeing how this is a "collection of news reports" or a "collection of indiscriminate information" personally. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major study, adequately sourced. We do not keep articles on the routine study reports of small research groups, buit this one is non-routine and attracted international attention. DGG (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources show that this study has received a significant amount of attention, and that it is clearly notable. Anaxial (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete my initial impression was keep, but I was not able to find any recent articles that reflect back on / use this report - maybe it was only a flash in the pan and more news than notable (or maybe I am a poor researcher or maybe not enough time has passed for it to be appearing in other peer reviewed journal articles.) If more current sources are found then its impact / notability is proven over time and I will switch to keep.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - this is utterly weird. Why would wiki have a whole article about one not particularly notable scientific paper? It's also badly mistitled: this wasn't a "CRU study" in the sense of the CRU organising some research team, or a major observational programme, or something: it's the CRU study because Gillett happens to be at CRU. Whoever wrote this thing (and those who voted keep) just doesn't understand what is going on The study was led by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and was assisted by scientists from is wrong. It was work lead by NG, in collaboration with other scientists. Just like normal. There are countless scientific papers that are more notable and more interesting. We don't, and we shouldn't, have articles on them William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is referenced and cites reliable sources (including a peer-reviewed journal), and judging by the number of citations appears to be quite notable as well. Considering the study was published near the end of 2008 and we are now at the beginning of 2009, I believe it's a little premature to determine that "nothing of interest" arose from it. Finally, if there are factual inaccuracies in the article, the proper way to fix them is with the "Edit" tab, not an AfD comment. – 74 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The peer-reviewed journal paper is the topic of the WP article. Therefore, it cannot also be a source. Having an encyclopedia article about one journal article is just silly no matter how many main-street newspapers pick it up. -Atmoz (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A peer-reviewed journal is a de facto reliable source; I can think of no better source regarding the contents of an article than said article. Please provide a link to a policy (or guideline) stating that a peer-reviewed journal (in good standing) is not a reliable source. The peer-review process indicates community verification and at least limited acceptance of the contents of the article. – 74 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per DGG - Tphi (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (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.