Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan declaration

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Declaration

Article not sourced. No assertion of the notability of this document. Also, when following the wikilinks, it appears as if the organization is self-sourced. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It makes no effort to establish its own notability. Its basically nothing more then a copy of the text of said declaration Pstanton 07:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
Update: Article author added 2 sources. The first is an editorial article [1]. The second does not mention the Manhattan declaration, or the International Climate Science Coalition at all [2]. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Found an extremely strong source, today's Telegraph [3]. This isn't unnotable, it's a stub. This deletion debate should be closed immediately and Wikipedians should wonder why their neutrality policy has the IPCC page buzzing and this page as a stub. 80.47.220.22 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Before the finger pointing starts, the link you are referring to is an editorial comment. The question we are trying to address is if these two articles meet the guidelines: WP:RS and WP:N, not cast any judgment on the science. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Marginally notable content (one passing mention in a partisan editorial) that will likely never be more than stubs. The global warming oriented stuff on Wikipedia already is scattered across too many articles. Merge the content into global warming controversy or similar, and in the event that these grow then they can be broken out again. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've read about it elsewhere than in the Telegraph thing above; article needs fleshing out. Tempshill (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It certainly needs fleshing out though. I put up the page and it's only because I could find no reference here. This thing was an event that could turn out to be somewhat significant. At the very least it's interesting that this many people in the profession did such a thing and should be noted. Lexlex (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Link, ISCS website appears credible, opportunity exists for any of the signatores or members of their faculties to refute the statement. 'Global Warming' is an imporatant, world wide topic, needing light shed on it. If it is a sham, that too needs illumination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.246.2.80 (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, It happened, it's documented, and it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.68.94 (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if rewritten on the basis of real sources that may exist. The Telegraph "reliable source" is a passing mention in a single sentence as part of a long opinion piece debunking global warming. Canada Free Press and Right Side News are unreliable propaganda outlets. The US Committee page, however, mentions some true 3rd party sources for the conference, though I have not followed them up. I see no independent notability for the Declaration, & it should be merged in. The 2 articles at present are not actually about the subject, but used as vehicles for quotes, but they can be improved. DGG (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for above: Who or what makes the determination on whether a source is "reliable"? It's no problem, I just want to understand how it works and how a source becomes reliable on Wikipedia. Is there a list or something I can check? Lexlex (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Note e.g., in the latter "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" (bolding is in the original). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the declaration's only claim to notability, is Op-Ed's (Booker) and that various partisan sources (Inhofe's pressofficer Morano) have spoken about it. The ICSC is an astroturfing organization organized by the Heartland Institute. Had the declaration been widely cited or noticed, outside the limited circle of then it might have risen to a notable level, but it hasn't. On top the article has severe problems with WP:POV (popular opinion, growing movement) and WP:OR (frequently cited). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but as a result you would vote for removal of *any* reference in Wikipedia? If you believe this to be meritless propaganda, why not document it rather than banish it? I beg you to please reconsider your vote. Lexlex (talk) 08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see dear Kim, that you have shown the article a little love, standardized my errant semantics and even referenced a new source! Does this mean you've changed your vote? Perhaps? Lexlex (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i haven't changed my mind on my !vote. The declaration is not (as far as i can see) notable in any way or form. It seems to be little more than a footnote even in the sceptical picture on global warming. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep relatively new article documenting an event that may prove to be very noteworthy indeed. Give it a chance to improve before considering merging or removing. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is properly referenced and returns more than enough hits via a google search. If this article should be deleted then so should several hundred thousand (at the very least) of the other articles to be found on wikipedia. siarach (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether the article gets deleted. As Boris said, it's marginally notable. But I did find another potential reference. [4] -Atmoz (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added. Lexlex (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I will endorse a Merge decision on Manhattan declaration to Climate change with the addition of this reference: [[5]]. I'd also like to address the nomination of International Climate Science Coalition. The organization has two references: the first, [[6]] does not currently exist at that ___location. When it did, it was not a reliable secondary or objective third party source. The second, [[7]] does not meet guidelines for WP:RS. At its current state, notability for International Climate Science Coalition has not been established as per WP:ORG. Both articles could be merged to Climate Change with minimal impact. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would it be merged into Climate change? That article isn't about recent climate change - much better fits would be Climate change controversy, Politics of global warming or Kyoto protocol. The declaration says nothing about climate change, but is instead a comment on the political expediency or futility of the Kyoto protocol. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's author, I would endorse and prefer to keep it separate. This one event is potentially significant and has been cited numerous times by outside sources. I would like to find additional information on this event, including pictures, more in depth descriptions of the organization, et cetera. I consider it a stub that needs fleshing out and am willing to do so, but not under article duress. Note that OliverTwisted nominated this article for deletion within hours of its creation and while he is to be commended for the amount of effort expended, perhaps his enthusiasm is trumping my development time in this case. Please give me a few of weeks. Thanks Lexlex (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that following links in a new article shows undue enthusiasm. If the article had been correctly sourced when introduced, it would not have been subject to an AfD discussion. WP:CRYSTAL plainly addresses topics that will become notable in the future. If sources don't currently exist, then the article should be merged until such time when notability can be asserted in keeping with WP:NOTE and WP:MERGE. Keeping an article that doesn't provide notable sources is problematic at best, since future AfD discussions are likely, and if the article is deleted, this information could be lost. Merging both articles into the protected Climate change article could preserve the information, in the most relevant ___location, until additional sources can be provided showing that this document, Manhattan declaration and the organization, International Climate Science Coalition have received more than trivial or editorial coverage. Both articles should be closed as Keep, and discussion should be moved to Proposed Mergers, WP:PM --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments for retention presented above. John254 16:41, 1 January 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.