Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Climate Science Coalition


 * 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   redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer). Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer); delete/redirect !votes agree article notability isn't assessed and this is a valid search term. Any content that could be merged to the Tom Harris article can be salvaged from the article's history. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

International Climate Science Coalition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was prodded, which I deprodded and added a few sources to, but sources are rather thin in availability and in their depth of coverage, and this topic may not ultimately meet WP:N. Per discussion occurring at the Rescue list, I've nominated this for deletion and hopeful further analysis here regarding available sources about the topic and their degree of coverage; the topic may not ultimately meet the threshold of notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here are a few sources I found from cursory searches, per WP:BEFORE:
 * More are possibly available by clicking-through in the find sources template above. I currently don't have time to find, research and assess additional sources, should they exist. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More are possibly available by clicking-through in the find sources template above. I currently don't have time to find, research and assess additional sources, should they exist. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More are possibly available by clicking-through in the find sources template above. I currently don't have time to find, research and assess additional sources, should they exist. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * More are possibly available by clicking-through in the find sources template above. I currently don't have time to find, research and assess additional sources, should they exist. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * delete: non-notable. None of those 3 sources do more than note them in passing well down in the articles William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you searched for any additional sources regarding this topic? It seems like you're just analyzing the few that were presented here, rather than source availability and their depth of coverage should they be available, which is more significant in AfD discussions. See WP:NRVE for additional information. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tricky to do so - they show up an awful lot in blogs, where they occupy a rather polarised position. And just about nowhere else. Which was my original point. I'll be happy to see someone else find decent refs to them William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. The coalition has been worthy of notice by several books (, devote at least one page each, and there are many more search hits) and some or other news source, and at least some mentions from (see scholar search, although I have not evaluated the context of those). Diego (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same problem I think. Using the English version, the first two I get are (not about ICSC really, only a very tangenital mention in a whole book) and the second  isn't about ICSC either. Can you find anyone who actually says *anything* about them? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How are you reading the sources? The Powell book summarizes a long list of statements from the ICSC and then states: Contrast the mission and principles of the ICSC with those of the AGU; [...] The AGU and its members seek answers; denier organizations like the ICSC know the answers and seek only confirmation that they are righ. One group of minds is open; the other closed. The book by Hoggan and Littlemore also quotes paragraphs from the ICSC website and has extensive commentary about Tom Harris, noting his views as executive director of the ICSC such as in March 2008 he popped up as the new executive director of the ICSC, which operates from the same IP address and with most of the same "experts" (...) as the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the Australian Climate Science Coalition and Although Harris doesn't tend to invoke the word "grassroots" quite so often at the ICSC he remains committed to the old tactics ... This is the kind of direct commentary of the topic that WP:GNG asks for. (Note that, as explicitly acknowledged by the guideline, the book doesn't need to be exclusively about the topic for it to count for notability). Diego (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Tom Harris (mechanical engineer) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or possibly redirect to Tom Harris. I see no notable mention of them in any references... from what i can glance it is a typical astroturfing pressure group with an impressive name, but very minimal influence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a general problem since people can set up organizations which are essentially only them. Is there a general policy on this.  If not, there should be. Eli Rabett (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems to be factual incorrect amd misleading, refer to 'Who We Are' on the ICSC site for more information Beesaman (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep meets the WP:ORG requirements of attracting notice, online newspapers, journal references etc... Need to be careful here that noted climate activists are not trying to throw their WP weight around instead of actually searching for supporting refs. The  ICSC seems to have attracted their attention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beesaman (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That Tom Harris and others involved with the ICSC are writing op-eds does not make for independent significant coverage in reliable sources...which is the requirement of WP:ORG. I'm perfectly willing to change my view, if you (or anyone else) can come up with such independent significant coverage. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The notable point, is that their writings and views are being accepted for publication in national newspapers and that they are being commented upon in peer reviewed journals. Whether those references are in a positive or negative light is not the point, the fact that they happen, is. Removal of this article would cause dissonance and disconnection for those trying to triangulate a reference from journals or news articles. Also it is significant because the coverage is not merely Western centric but more global in nature as befits a global topic. This is without including the coverage on blogs where the coverage is even more notable. Beesaman (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly notable in the fact that you can get an opinion printed in a newspaper. It is certainly not significant coverage - which is the requirement for notability. All we have is mention in passing, or (what amounts to) self-publishing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you here, it was not 'trivial' nor was it just 'mentioned' in passing. The article was not 'self-published' for example like many blog articles, it was published by an independent news source, again meeting WP requirements as the editors must have deemed it worthy of inclusion. It soumds odd that an article, published by a national news outlet in South Africa is somehow deemed not notable enough. Beesaman (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing something yourself and then sending it to a newspaper who prints it as opinion, is basically self-publishing. There is no editorial oversight, and in Wikipedia context it is only usuable for the opinion of the person writing it. What media it is printed in, doesn't grant it any particular notability either - since it reflects the opinion of the person, not the media itself. Nb. not that it matters but BD only has a daily readership of <100,000 people - which is very little
 * What is needed here is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and that is what is missing here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [Note: Beesaman has few contributions outside this debate William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)]
 * [Note: ' some' might say Connolley has too many, or is this just bullying/intimidation of the 'new guy'?] Beesaman (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

*Keep As per Beesaman, the notability on this is high. I have added another recent news reference. Goldfringer ( talk ) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ' I have to disagree with you on this, the editor ultimately decides what is published not the opinion writer. A lot of journal and blog writers would deem it pretty 'significant' to have 100000 readers! Beesaman (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [Note: Goldfringer has precious few edits, outside this and the only-just-a-touch fringe Monatomic gold William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)]
 * Using that argument would mean only the highest editing contributor should be listened to! Is this a popularity contest or a debate about an article's notability? Beesaman (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Added another reference, for balance one in opposition to the views of the ICSC and one seemingly referred to by KimDabelsteinPetersen earlier but not cited. Beesaman (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete (no redirect) Diego puts forth a reasonable defense for why the article subject is notable.  However, his arguments are insufficient to overcome the thin sourcing available.  Powell outlines the ICSC positions as an example, but does not discuss the ICSC itself. Hence I believe it falls short of the non-trivial mention requirement for sourcing.  Powell is writing about the statement, not the organization. The best analogy I can think is that non-notable columnist A wouldn't become notable merely because notable columnist B wrote a column tearing apart the columnist A's writings.   The reason I don't support a redirect is that I looked at the Tom Harris article, and I'm not convinced that article would survive a deletion debate..... Sailsbystars (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The request for deletion should not centre upon just one item within the article nor its position in relation to other held views. There is more to the ICSC than that, it has coverage and notability, maybe too much for some of the commentators here? I have posted  positive and negative references. My view that this article should be kept is not based upon a belief about its content but an understanding of its position and notability within a wider context. Beesaman (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:FRINGE -- this is not extensively or significantly covered in reliable sources. Mere passing mentions, done out of journalistic scruples, does not make this group anywhere close to notable. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim that climate debate is a 'fringe' issue is highly questionable! Beesaman (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Added yet another reference, this time from the EAP Journal, in their own words, 'Welcome to the homepage of Economic Analysis and Policy (EAP), a refereed journal which has been in existence since 1970. We seek submissions from all areas of economics. In particular, we want to invite passionate, critical, and controversial articles.' http://www.eap-journal.com/. So that's Australiian, South African USA and Canadian coverage in refs. Beesaman (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why have you voted twice?  — ThePowerofX 21:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, learning cycle, my error in typing, I had meant just to reinforce an earlier point, many thanks for highlighting it. Beesaman (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The "source" (which almost certainly fails WP:RS, but that's not relevant) doesn't reference ICSC as far as I can tell, so I fail to see how it adds evidence for the notability of the article subject. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the reference, it not only cites ICSC but quotes some of its work. P189, and if a long standing referreed journal isn't acceptable as a source of notability then what is? I'm happy to further my understanding of the machinations of WP. Very interesting that citations are demanded, given, but reported as dismissed, seemingly without checking. Beesaman (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia's policy on notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Quoting again:  "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material..  Your new "source" only uses ICSC as a source for the text of the Manhattan declaration, which is also sourced elsewhere.  It doesn't have any content about the ICSC.  Ergo, not helpful in demonstrating notability....  Sailsbystars (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced by the logic of your argument here. Is it a reliable source? Yes. Is the source ( in this case the journal) independent of the WP subject? Yes. Does it refer to the WP article in more than a rivial sense? Here I would say yes, but others (depending on their own bias) might disagree. As it directly refers to the ICSC (links to its website as well) and a conference declaration, then I would be inclined to accept it as more than trivial. My concern here is not for the rights and wrongs of the content but, as I've noted before, the dissonance  deleting such WP articles has on cross referencing in this domain Beesaman (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Another reference that places the ICSC within the same notability as other climate groups, to quote ' Canada is home to many high-profile scientists on all sides of the issue (Andrew Weaver, Tim Ball, Tim Patterson) as well as activist groups and think tanks (Climate Action Network, The David Suzuki Foundation, E ́quiterre, The Friends of Science, The Fraser Institute, The International Climate Science Coalition that maintain high public profiles on climate change issues.'   Young, N and Dugas, E (2011) Representations of Climate Change in Canadian National Print Media: The Banalization of Global Warming,  Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie  Volume 48, Issue 1 Pages: 1–22. Beesaman (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tom Harris. There's enough out there for a couple substantial paragraphs, but (in my best judgement) not enough for notability of a standalone article.  Garamond Lethe  06:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. J04n(talk page) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (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.

Hurrah - Wiki removed ICSC. Now can we get them to remove "Tom Harris"? I am very insignificant and not worthy of the great and powerful Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.3.55 (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)