Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert M. Carter


 * 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. It's snowing, no point in prolonging this one. Black Kite 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert M. Carter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It's true that this article has a lot of sources. However none of them discuss Dr. Carter in depth. What is really happening is that the article is the result of two forces: One, Dr. Carter himself trying to promote himself. Two, environmental activists trying to discredit him as a global warming skeptic. There is also a news story about Dr. Carter's work with geological core samples -- but that is still not about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Relatively well sourced, though more should definitely be done. Subject seems notable, and the only "attack" in the article seems to be one sentence sourced to The Sydney Morning Herald about his standing amongst climate scientists. A  ni  Mate  20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the only thing his critics could find was a trivial statement by a newspaper reporter shows how non-notable he is.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Extra comment I have recently been tagging articles on scientists as non-notable. Many of them just give employment and publishing information. There seems to be an attitude on WP that working in the field of scientific research makes a person more notable than, say, managing a bank or filling people's teeth. Is there a policy that says: "WP is not a Who's Who?" Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For instance Dr. Carter's article states: "Carter has published more than 100 scientific papers...." Duh. That's his job. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also (1) a statistic that helps show how well he's done that job, and (2) an indicator of how well known he is within his field. JulesH (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What if there were an article on a police officer which said: "Officer Smith has written more than 10,000 speeding tickets..."? :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * False comparison. Writing speeding tickets doesn't make someone notable. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor does writing papers. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it does. Its one of the major criteria in judging the notability of an academic, especially the number of citations of the papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "That's his job". Not really.  The key job for a scientist is to do science.  The publication is not nearly as important as the science behind the publication.  Publishing papers is the way science is documented and communicated to the world. Oh, almost forgot:KeepWVhybrid (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. For a scientist to be notable in the WP sense his work has to be commented on in secondary sources, not it merely reported that he (or she) is doing it. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in part with the above. Nobody (except the offender) reads speeding tickets. Publishing articles is indeed what academics do (they have to, their performance is evaluated on the basis of published papers). If an academic publishes a thousand papers but there is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention, then that academic is not notable. However, if evidence exists that these papers have made a big impact in the field (for instance, by being heavily cited by other academics - not just a few dozen citations, mind) then such an academic would be notable. Having said all this, this discussion does not really belong in this particular AfD, but at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --Crusio (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the reasons for some of these articles is probably that List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming only includes noteable inviduals so people create articles if they feel someone is noteable (and they are deleted if they are not). I've informed the contributors there of the deletion discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been finding lots of non-notable scientists not related to global warming (which I am against), or anything else "controversial." Northwestgnome (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep For anyone following the GW debate he is notable enough for inclusion, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For once i agree with GoRight ... Carter is one of the most well-known global warming sceptics to anyone following the GW debate. As for whether he is notable as a scientist in his own regard, is more dubious. His Op-Ed in the Telegraph about warming stopping in 1998 is (in-)famous.. He has been the subject of at least one biographical article (reprinted here). He was an expert witness in the Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills trial. etc.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I might well be wrong about his notability. However, that is not really a biographical article. He is interviewed and some info is given on him but then the author goes on, into what is almost Gonzo journalism, about his own feelings about global warming. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: while not hugely reliable, a Google test shows 12,200 hits, and as said above, he has 100 papers, which isn't bad. He is notable enough imo anyway. The very fact that there are two sets of people, pro- and con- AGW theory, that make this article controversial, shows his notability. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes the professor test; enough sources discussing/mentioning him as an expert demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plenty of notable coverage on this guy. We don't need to agree with him to acknowledge that he is notable.-- Lester  05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of secondary sources. The article is quite horrible and should be completely rewritten, but WP:BIO seems to be met. --Crusio (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bob Carter is one of a handful of prominent Australian climate change skeptics who have driven the skeptic side of the debate, has appeared in the Australian media on many occasions, and there should be a Wiki page for individuals who are interested in information on him GrahamP (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notability certainly isn't an issue in this article. Content?  Sure, it kind of reads like a resume--but that's an editing issue and not an AfD issue.  And certainly for collaboration, it's a start--and a darned good one at that.  Many editors here start with articles that have much, much less information and edit them to robust articles.  Sure, you're not supposed to "create an article about yourself" (and I'm not saying that's what happened here) but if it did happen in this case, I'm okay with it because of the notability of the subject.  Now editors can fly with it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm new here so correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like this could be a Snowball Keep? RockManQ (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'd do so myself but I'm "involved." Oren0 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I do not see this case as passing WP:PROF but there appears to be sufficient coverage of him in the newsmedia to pass WP:BIO (although not as much coverage as I expected after reading the above debate; a filtered GoogleNews search returns 16 hits). Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2008 (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.