Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murry Salby


 * 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. A rough consensus demonstrated notability via WP:PROF#C1. j⚛e deckertalk 01:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Murry Salby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable scientist/academic. No reference to any significant academic work contribution. Arguably an attack page to highlight non-conformist views on atmospheric CO2. Listing him is undue/fringe spectacle, not a notable alternative viewpoint.


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 3.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 04:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: due to a number of comments regarding BLP, I have hatted the contents as opposed to deleting (which would be BLP policy but not AfD rules - compromise is hat). They can be unhidden with a click.  I also modified notability to "Atmospheric scientist".  If there is a way to "noindex" a page while retaining BLP issues, please do so. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Sportfan5000 didn't like hatting. I stubbed it per  until notability and balance are added.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. --DHeyward (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's always a bad sign when a scientist's biography doesn't actually list any scientific publications (save for, in this case, a library catalog entry for his 1978 doctoral thesis).  He was marginally on the radar last year because the climate-change-denialist blogosphere likes a good persecution fantasy, and a few 'skeptical' columnists were rather trusting.  The guy left a tenured position in the States while he was being investigated for misuse of grant money, and then got fired from an Aussie university for failing to show up to teach classes.  Ho-hum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This has since been changed (I have added a study Salby et al. published in GRL, and coverage of the study by the journal Nature). Jinkinson   talk to me  20:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of 30+ gives clear pass of WP:Prof, even in a well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my ignorance. I'm curious as to how h-index is derived and compared to other academics. I don't doubt the data but I'm sorely lacking knowledge in that metric and how it relates to different fields and what source provides scoring. I'd be curious to compare hime to William Collins or Isaac Held as a datapoint. --DHeyward (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at h-index, WP:Prof their talks and archives. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Okay I'm daft. I understand what it is, but do you have a link?  I simply could not find a number for Salby.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a link about four inches above this line. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
 * It's possible that this chap is a 'notable' enough scientist to warrant a Wikipedia article. The problem is that our article – as it was created, and as it remains now – doesn't actually address any of his career.  Our article just talks about how Salby is "known for" his contrarian claims regarding global warming (basing that assertion on cites to a climate change denialist and a tabloid column, and in spite of Salby's lack of publications on the topic), and then notes that he was fired amidst a teapot tempest.
 * If someone wants to write a proper biographical article on Salby, they would be better off starting from scratch&mdash;though I do wonder if there is really sufficient independent coverage of him for us to be able to write a proper biography that doesn't rely too heavily on primary sources and original synthesis. Either way, starting from this skeleton of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK is inviting BLP disaster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is easily rewritten to give a balanced bio, no question of notability (see below_). Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment. He's notable, as Xxanthippe points out (and his book Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics has 446 citations), but the page has multiple WP:BLP violations, and is probably deletable on that basis. He was, it is true, involved in a complex and messy dispute with Macquarie University (the University admits, for example, that while he was overseas "his return flight was cancelled"), but Wikipedia can't assemble a story out of primary sources there. -- 101.119.14.70 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets GNG, the rest are cleaning up issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Keep. His citation record demonstrates conclusive pass of WP:PROF c1 – citation count from WoS: 351, 201, 198, 185, 165, 158, ... (h-index 28). The article needs rewrite. I'll give a day or two of right-of-first-refusal, then have go myself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. There is very little in the way of WP:RS on his recent history. There is an official statement by Macquarie University, but it responds to none of Salby's allegations (which themselves exist only on unreliable blog posts). There appear to be no reliable news stories on the final outcome of the dispute (other than the fact that his employment was terminated). Legal action is presumably ongoing. It's not even clear what Salby is currently doing. -- 101.119.14.238 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This aspect of the article should probably be redacted entirely and rewritten to focus on his obviously-notable scientific contributions. I plan on doing this shortly unless someone else has a go first. Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC).
 * It's not bad to clean up inaccuracies but The Guardian does delve into his likely fraud cases which need to also go into the article with due weight. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * I think his notability is from his academic work. The alleged fraud and the firing are very recent newsy items.  We can't say he's notable based on his google scholar score and then only write about fraud and CO2.  He would not be notable for that. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to improve the article, not to delete everything you don't like or that isn't glowing. I have to step out for a bit, but will look for more when I return. Please spend some energy improving the article which undeniably exists. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Stubbing notable people until that material exists is proper. We don't keep bad BLP's.  The material is still there to build on but it's been over a week and this article has no other material.  I don't have any information on him.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You effectively edit warred so now all progress on the article has been halted. You didn't bother to try to fix the problem, you flippantly deleted everything, even though it was well sourced. But we are here now and I will keep trying to get things improved. I understand you wish it would all go away but that doesn't seem to be happening. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Excuse me, but no I did not. Everyone seems to agree that the current form is a BLP problem.  I didn't delete anything from history or blank the page.  Had you left the stub or left the hat, instead of just reverting, we wouldn't be here.  I don't particularly care if it goes away and stubbing doesn't accomplish that anyway.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have locked the article for five days because of the edit war going on. It's particularly disruptive considering the article is at AfD. If other editors want to highlight new sources that would make the article notable, they can do it on this page or make a request on the article's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Advice on content added to talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources and WP:BLP issues. -- 101.119.14.25 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.14.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - pretty clearly noteworthy, as evidenced by the refs - David Gerard (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:RSs are there, clearly notable. If there is cleaning to do then let it be done, deleting because an article needs works is not reasonable. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  15:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, easily meets WP:PROF (obviously per #1, probably per other criteria as well). Strange nomination.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not strange when none of the reasons for "keep" were in his bio and he was almost simultaneously put in a list of scientists that oppose science. If you are a University hiring climatologists, is he above average?  Do you get a warm and fuzzy feeling that he is above average after reading the WP article?  I didn't.  I saw a guy that is down for the count and a high-profile web site piling on to that.  He's looking for a job and would you want your bio showing up the way his does on WP in a google search?  According to all the !votes, his article should be reflect an above-average climatologist with a proven track record in his field.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Prof and its notes. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I already did that. I don't think he meets it.  The notes mention the average professor test and the nutshell discount sheer publication/citation.  Is he above average in his field?  I don't get that impression. He's unemployed at the moment. --DHeyward (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As Xxanthippe has already indicated, his h-index is roughly 30. The usual standard for AfD discussions of academics is that an h-index of 10 is sufficient to pass WP:PROF.  A value of 30 makes it a no-brainer.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One does not have to be employed to satisfy WP:Prof. Einstein, among many other notable scientists, is unemployed because he is dead. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Most of his citations appear to be from a textbook which is a useful collection of knowledge but rarely are they a significant contribution to the field. Is he better than the average climatologist?  Would he be your choice to fill an academic opening in climatology?  Those two questions speak directly to his notability as WP:PROF.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF doesn't say anything at all about relying on editors' judgments as to whether he would be the right choice for a job opening. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but it says a lot about whether you consider him above average and that is covered. If his article implies he is below average, basing his notability as WP:PROF doesn't cut it.  --

DHeyward (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect we'll do fine sticking with what WP:PROF actually says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I would hope so, but the comments aren't encouraging so far. Get your coats ready.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note A replacement uncontroversial "Education and career" section, plus a new "Academic positions" section, have been edit requested on the talk page for two days, this was in process of being added to the article when it was locked down. The first part of the requested addition to the lead has been enacted already. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
 * Keep, article in its present state is a bad BLP problem just waiting to happen, but Salby seems to have been notable enough even before his Macquarie University related chicanery hit the press. Needs a good hard rewrite though to remove the WP:UNDUE]undue focus on that one embarrassing incident.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Comment. Since the article has been locked in the non-BLP-compliant state, improvement is not really an option, and deletion per WP:TNT seems the best course. -- 101.119.15.220 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at all, article seems fine to me. If you have improvements to make wait until the lock is lifted and make them. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a pending edit request, in place since the article was locked down, that would specifically address this concern. The talk page is also full of comments of way to proceed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban 03:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]


 * Keep The articles with the very high citation count prove notability. I don't think this would have been quested except for his heterodox views in this particular field;  we sometimes seem to have a prejudice in this respect.  DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the highly cited articles, passes WP:ACADEMIC#1. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2014 (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.