Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming


 * 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 Delete. Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 21:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Article created as POV fork after this book was excluded, as a source, from An Inconvenient Truth based on WP:RS and relevance. Cannot find mainstream reviews or notable independent sources (other than publisher) referring to this book. No evidence of significant scientific or cultural impact. Low sales ranking (~35,000) on Amazon. Many more influential pro/con treatises on climate change do not warrant their own article. MastCell 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. God forbid we should actually be of use to anyone desiring information on this topic. To actually be helpful would destroy Wikipedia's reputation for uselessness and hostility. 66.108.168.149 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sorry, but your comments fail WP:SARCASM. -- Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... you've inspired me. What do you think? MastCell 04:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The assertion that it's POV doesn't mean it should be deleted, just that it should be edited. It's apparently a published work on a controversial subject, I think that's enough justification. JCO312 00:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment - Reviewing the Notability criterium, this book about a crucial global debate written by 11 different scientists who fully reference their work within the book, many of them prominent enough to already being Wikepedia notable, should render the book notable enough too. One should not confuse Notability with Popularity.


 * This page so far is dominated by comments from an editor who did not participate in any of the earlier article discussions since last September.Sympa 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think WP:N sets the bar a little higher than that. The article itself is a POV fork, not just POV (which could be fixed with editing). MastCell 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This does not address the issue of notability. If someone can find significant mentions of the article's topic in some form of mainstream media it might be saveable, but per the low Amazon sales ranks and lack of reviews I find that unlikely.  Feel free to prove me wrong with links though. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unless someone can assert notability on this it really needs to go. Even if notability could be established almost 90% of the article would need to be removed due to WP:NPOV issues. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A cursory search doesn't reveal any meaningful independent sources for this. Non-notable. --Sopoforic 01:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The appropriate policy here is Notability (books). I spent a fairly long time searching for this but I had a lot of trouble finding ANY significant independent sources and reviews. The book is in about 247 libraries out of 10,000+ searched by worldcat. Thats more than the threshold standards but not enough to convince me that the book is notable. GabrielF 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the book is obviously notable, but the current content has got to be overhauled. NPOV issues and inappropriate content abound. The article should be about the book, not about the point that the book is trying to make. Arguments against Global Warming should go under a different article, like Global warming controversy perhaps. -- wtfunkymonkey 03:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Books shouldn't be judged according to their sales and availability. Look at Harry Potter books, does that mean all the facts in Harry Potter books are correct because it's on bestseller list for I-don't-know-how-long-already. Also, many books are not the centre of attention after many years of its publishing date. Similar "fate" of books include Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859) which suggests the theory of evolution. It was 10 years after the first publishing date (1869) that scientists really start focusing on his information. Another great example is James Watson and Francis Crick published their article The Molecular structure of Nucleic Acids in 1953. They didn't receive Nobel prize until 1962. Why is that article important? This article is about the discovery of DNA. There're lots and lots of scientific articles that are realized of its full potential after many years (and sometimes the author died already!)One final note, it's pointless to go to Amazon.com to look for books. It's time to learn a new type of book call E-Journal.   OhanaUnited
 * Comment: Your example is somewhat weird. 9 years between publication and Nobel price is rather short. Of course the work was recognized as important and notable long before that.--Stephan Schulz 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gabriel. Eusebeus 07:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as non-notable (and also as a waste of time) William M. Connolley 09:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 10:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Hasn't established notability.zadignose 12:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article itself states that "Discussion in the news media and on the internet (both regarding the book and its individual essays) has been minimal". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The relevant (proposed) guideline, Notability (books), is fairly generous regarding notability, but this book doesn't appear meet the standard at this time, per GabrielF's attempt to find independent commentary. If the book gets some independent press or awards, then an article might be appropriate.  TheronJ 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above comments. I agree that it fails to meet policies.--James, La gloria è a dio 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A book's value can't be determined by sales numbers; however, its notability can be. --Scimitar 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Please take a fresh look at the article. I added 2 reviews from reliable independent publications which I found with Proquest. In particular, there was a favorable review by Choice, the publication of the American Library Association, as well as a bried review by Scitech Book News. These two reviews along with the unfavorable coverage by the other side establish notability and verification. Edison 18:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Edison, please review criterion 2 at WP:BK. It specifically says that a review in a publication like Choice that reviews thousands of books a year with little regard for notability does not indicate that the book is notable. (If you look at the table of contents for the July/Aug issue of Choice you'll see that there are 622 items, looks like mostly all book reviews - I am assuming that Scitech book news is similar). Every book will be reviewed somewhere, just like every book will have a page on amazon.com - neither signifies notability. I have a self-published history of a New England liberal arts college that cites two reviews on the cover. The point is not that any book that's been reviewed is notable, its that any book that is reviewed by publications that don't review just about everything is notable. If a significant reviewer (NYTimes, NY Review of Books, London Review of Books, etc.) thought that the book was notable enough to warrant a real review (not a paragraph) than that's evidence of notability. A couple of brief reviews are really meaningless. GabrielF 18:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit conflict) Wikipedia guidelines for notability explicitly exclude "reviews in periodicals that review thousands of books a year with little regard for notability"; both Choice (whose web page claims over 7,000 reviews per year) and SciTech Book News (over 20,000 reviews per year) are in this class. Raymond Arritt 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment As it happens, you are wrong about Choice, which reviews 7000 bks a year from the estimated 50,000 or so academic titles published. The selection criteria are that the title must be impt to an UG curriculum. The reviews are typically favorable because they do not include lower quality books  unless they're so bad that a warning is in order. Every time I've wanted to give a book a neg review there, I've needed to justify why a neg review should be published. DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: And the other cited "review", from Scitech Book News, is one sentence long. Literally. (See article talk page). MastCell 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And that in fact is indeed a warning they did not find it worth further review, perhaps because they did not find it to be science. .DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Consistent with GabrielF, my searches show the book has not generated substantive reviews or press notice. Raymond Arritt 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all above. Vsmith 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the proposed WP:BK. As a side comment, note that the book was a case of the mediation cabal: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-11 Shattered Consensus. Pascal.Tesson 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not a POV-fork, despite claims made above. Trying to insert the material about the book to counterbalance an article about a book of pseudoscience by a non-scientist celebrity may be POV, and is probably bad practice, but creating a separate article is not. But it does seem to be non-notable - even places like Michael Fumento's website and National Review Online don't mention it. Argyriou (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the info above. /Blaxthos 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What is the harm of having a small article about the book? It is not small at the moment, but that can be changed... --nkayesmith 01:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hey guys, let's shut down AfD, our job is done. As this argument can be applied to any article, we might as well keep 'em all.  What is the harm?zadignose 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: To make the same point as Zadignose, albeit less sarcastically, "what's the harm?" is specifically listed under Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. MastCell 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To elaborate: The book is notable enough for a small article to exist. --nkayesmith 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete per WP:NOTE.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  05:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete there's a lot of notable nonsense on the subject, but this book is not one of those that have attracted attention.The extreme POV pushing of the article adds to the impression.DGG 06:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and promote debate with more debate, not censorship.ShivaDaDestroyer 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (account blocked indefinitely for recurrent vandalism. MastCell 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Account created today. MastCell 02:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems notable. I also agree with promoting the discussion. Note that I am also a newbie. | Noticket 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm curious: What leads you to the belief of notability?--Stephan Schulz 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia's role, like that of any encyclopedia, is not so much to "promote debate" as to catalog information on notable people, places, events, etc. If the book is notable, then supporting reasoning should be provided (see WP:N for general guidelines). If your goal is to promote scientific debate or promote skepticism about conventional wisdom, then there are many other more appropriate venues than Wikipedia. MastCell 22:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 23:44, 22 January 2007 (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.