Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot model


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Climate sensitivity. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hot model

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is a article which can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject, and one which must be covered in larger inclusive articles. It should not be a separate thing. Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A Merge to an appropriate page as suggested by AE would be a workable solution.Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, after merging anything worthwhile into relevant topics (it isn't immediately clear which, since our coverage of climate change modelling seems fragmented as it is) . Merge. There is nothing in any source cited to justify treating the article topic as anything more than a single facet of a broader subject, and doing so is almost certainly detrimental to understanding of the science behind climate modelling. It is liable to give the misleading impression (at least, I hope it is misleading - if it isn't, it doesn't say much for scientific rigour) that specific climate models are being rejected solely because they give results which differ from those previously obtained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not quite that. A subset models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods. Specifically, the models conflict with 'real world' data like satellite observations. This makes it more understandable that, when modelled data and empirical data conflict, most climate scientists prefer the empirical data. Still, you hit on the reason why this is an ongoing subject of debate, see e.g. for accessible summaries. That is why I thought we have an article about the phenomenon and why I'm disappointed to see it nominated for deletion. If merged elsewhere, I think readers will struggle to find information on this subject specifically. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've changed my !vote to merge, after seeing Alalch E.'s suggestion to add this content to the Climate sensitivity article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not really sure how to respond to this nomination. The subject is clearly notable – the five sources cited in the article are just a small subset of those available. can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject is not an argument for deletion I've encountered before and seems to be flatly contradicted by Summary style. That it must be covered in larger inclusive articles and should not be a separate thing are just bare assertions, no? I obviously disagree. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * From Wikipedia:Notability: Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. The context here is obvious. And indeed, your comments above explaining that "models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods", and rejected when "data and empirical data conflict" provides it. Climate models in general are (or should be) assessed on the same premise, and may be rejected on the same basis. There is nothing specific to 'hot models' that makes their rejection atypical. It is climate modelling science working as it should: which doesn't require special treatment for a subset of cases being treated the same way as any other. Or separate Wikipedia articles.
 * As for readers struggling to find information, that is what redirects are for. Though frankly, I have my doubts that many interested in that particular subject would be searching for 'hot models' as a title anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that they're not atypical. They do require special treatment, and that is why they are a distinct subject of significant coverage in both popular and scientific sources: . And note the use of the phrase 'hot models' specifically in all of those sources.
 * You and Qwirkle both appear to be arguing here that this subject is notable but doesn't merit a standalone article, but you haven't said why the context that is apparently missing can't just be added to the article, summary style; you haven't identified what that larger article should be; and you've !voted delete instead of merge. That doesn't make sense to me. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I haven't named any specific article to merge to because Wikipedia coverage of climate modelling is fragmented, and it is not at all clear where the material should be merged to. This fragmentation is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of a Wikipedia readership which is, one assumes, composed almost entirely on non-specialists looking for overviews and broad explanations of the science (which doesn't reject 'hot models' because they are 'hot'), rather than searching for two-word phrases that would in any other context would mean something else entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the below comment where I've pinged you, as I have identified the article to merge into. —Alalch E. 18:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Joe Roe. Meets GNG. It's a distinct subject. I see no issue with it as a standalone article.  C F A   💬  14:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it’s a subset of climate modeling. Its significance is in comparison with other, more accurate models. Qwirkle (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with climate sensitivity per below. I have revised my !vote. This is a topic that is too technical (obscure?) and would be better off as a section in an article with more context.  C F A   💬  03:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thoughts on this: special:permalink/1232623009?—Alalch E. 18:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, seems a sensible suggestion - I've revised my !vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the sourcing I cited above more than justifies a standalone article, though there's no reason it can't be covered in other articles as well. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is merged, readers will not, as you said, struggle to find information on this subject specifically, because a reader who enters "hot model" into search will equally be directed to content about hot models, be it content segregated on a standalone page or the same content as part of a suitable broader article (the redirect can link to a section). There are thousands of sources about climate sensitivity, but only around a hundred-ish are cited in our article. There being many sources about something does not necessarily mean that the reader is better served by reading about that on a separate page. If merged, anyone, including you, will then be able to restore the article from the redirect to significantly expand the coverage beyond what is deserved in the climate sensitivity article, and the content merged into there will then be more or less a summary. A 'merge' outcome does not prevent that. Alternatively coverage in the hot models section can be expanded to the point where splitting out may begin to seem needed. The questions are really: what more is there to be said (not how many sources there are, saying the same or similar things or things that do not really belong in a general encyclopedia) and is the reader better served by reading this in the context of a broader topic or in isolation. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, for the time being, it's better to cover this in context. —Alalch E. 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about how many sources there were. I said that the sources treat it as a distinct topic. We should follow them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge to climate sensitivity per what Alalch has done. Corrected a couple of errors there. I would delete the run hot redirect, as it seems an implausible redirect. It's a technical topic, that is better covered with more context. The hot model problem is now discussed twice in the article, as it was there before already. It's also in the Climate_sensitivity section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge to climate sensitivity per my longer comment above. This is better covered in context for the time being. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies. WP:MERGEREASON#4 (e: meant to say WP:MERGEREASON#5, see my reply below 20:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) ) also applies, but #2 and #3 apply as well. (The content has already been copied into the target article, which is not contentious, and obviously figures as an improvement to that article, so the nominated article as a separate article is redundant for the time being; merging does not prevent future expansion of the content underneath the source-article redirect.)—Alalch E. 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MERGEREASON#4 is lack of notability. Are the 13 sources cited above not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG? #3 is "very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences)". This article is already longer than that, and there is plenty of scope for expansion (it was nominated for deletion just six hours after creation). #2 is overlap with an existing topic. You've merged it to climate sensitivity, but that is just one aspect of the topic. Why not climate modelling or CMIP or impact of climate change? Because it's a distinct topic that doesn't fit wholly into any of them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to write #5 (Context). I went by memory. #4 used to be context until recently, and I was unaware of the change; please see this diff. I retract #3. I meant that in the sense of the article seeming unlikely to expand much. The topic is an element of climate sensitivity estimates. Some estimates are widely considered to be implausible. It's probably where it should be primarily covered as it flows very naturally from preceding text. I had taken a look at two of the three articles you've linked (not the last one), and there was no good place to put this, organizationally, in those articles. If put into the models article that would be "some models have produced estimats that are widely considered to be implausible". And that's the same thing. That doesn't mean we can't use editorial judgement to pick one or the other place to put the content and use that place as the redirect target. The sources cover the hot models not only within the general topics of climate sensitivity and models but also in a particular historical context: the workings of the IPCC in the part that concerns model democracy. And that's not covered in any article as far as I can see. But climate sensitivity talks a lot about the reports so that could be one of the places to cover that aspect, and another place would be the IPCC article. —Alalch E. 20:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the workings of the IPCC in the part that concerns model democracy seems like the real topic here. Look at this from 2010 referencing an opinion from 2006 about the problem, which only had its recent episode with the "hot models":"""Hot models" are just a recent manifestation of something broader. The sources you've linked cover this episode in the context of this age old discussion in the field. —Alalch E. 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To me that sounds like we should have an article on model democracy as well, but I guess we're at different places on the article lumper-splitter spectrum. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to climate sensitivity per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think anyone has argued that this subject is not notable. Instead, this seems to be a merge discussion. I am not convinced that any WP:MERGEREASON applies. This seems to be a perfectly decent article that can be understood on its own and that links to other topics that provide further information if the reader wishes. I would argue that WP:NOMERGE criteria 2 and 3 apply. Joe Roe has listed a lot of additional references above, suggesting that the article could be further expanded. Mgp28 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested, as presenting a more informative environment. Yes, this could in a pinch work as a standalone, but I'm not seeing the only obvious upside (easier expandability) as outweighing the benefit from having it embedded in its direct context. Breaking out stuff for expansion is easy enough; in the meantime, let's enjoy the same-page proximity of all background material (rather than having that hidden behind links). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.