Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfacestations


 * 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 to Anthony Watts (blogger).  DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Surfacestations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I believe that this website fails WP:WEB as the article is deriving its notability mostly from the notability of its founder Anthony Watts (blogger), promotion by like-minded fringe-theorists, and a throw-away NOAA FAQ press release. Useful content can be merged to the biographical article (most of it is already there). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability. TFD (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Indifferent as to whether the target should be Watts Up With That? or Anthony Watts (blogger).  Article seems to minimally satisfy WP:WEB (see below) with references 9 and 12.  Given marginal notability, it makes more sense to merge with an existing article.
 * Ref 1,5,7,10, 11 are all not independent of the website.
 * Ref 2 is trivial coverage, per WP:WEB
 * Ref 3 I can't read
 * Ref 4 is not a Reliable Source
 * Ref 6 is not about surfacestations.org at all
 * Ref 8 is more about watts than about the website. The name of the website is only mentioned in a list of several "see also" type links
 * Ref 9 I think counts as a single source for WP:WEB criteria 1
 * Ref 12 Also counts towards WP:WEB criteria 1
 * Ref 13 is an editorial
 * --- Sailsbystars (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep A google search for "surfacestations.org" returns 10,200 results - this indicates a significant interest in the surfacestations project, independent of the notability of its founder. A main rule for WP:WEB is "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". A significant number of the 10,200 google results are carefully presented appraisals or critiques of the project and cannot be dismissed as trivial references. The critiques are clearly independent of the site itself. Cadae (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how or why the discussion below got 'closed' but i've added some responses. Cadae (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually WP:GHITS is not an indication of notability. You cannot just assert that there are reliable, independent, third-party sources in that list on Google. Most of the links are certainly not usable as sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True, a simple google hit count is not an indication of notability - it is the content of those hits that are important - and that is what counts in favour of surfacestations.org's notability. A significant number of the articles are well-thought out critiques and appraisals and the surfacestations.org project is clearly notable. Cadae (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the link to the independent third-party reliable sources you have in mind that aren't discussed above? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure - here's some:
 * http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Third_Amendment_to_Petition_for_Reconsideration_SE_Legal_Foundation.pdf
 * Not reliable. Just a filing petition
 * This is an official petition to the EPA signed by 18 US Representatives and 18 companies. In terms of the spirit of 'notability', it can't be dismissed and there are no rules forbidding the use of official petitions as unreliable sources in the context of notability.
 * It's not a reliable tertiary source document. It can only be used to reference the opinions of the amateurs who wrote it. It's not an EPA evaluation.
 * The petition marks surfacestations.org project as a notable project because notability doesn't derive only from the science of a project, but also from its political impact. From a political perspective, these are definitely not amateurs.
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/climate-sceptic-us-weather-data
 * Blog.
 * Not listed as a blog - it appears to be part of the Guardian's environment section.
 * No hard copy exists and single-author editorial control is the norm in Guardian online: it therefore satisfies the criteria of WP:SPS.
 * I disagree - see the comment in WP:NEWSBLOG: "In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions". The fact that the Guardian left the blog entry standing after that ruling indicates that The Guardian are satisfied that the blog meets the required standards for print editions.
 * http://dpa.aapg.org/correlator/what06jun10.cfm
 * Blog.
 * Not a blog - this is the publication "The Correlator" by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
 * No hardcopy exists and it appears to be solely the opinion of the author with no editorial control. See WP:SPS.
 * Hardcopy is not a requirement. The Correlator articles are explicitly added to the quarterly publication by the editors - individual authors do not decide what is published.
 * http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2010/04/the_blogosphere_has_always_bee.html
 * Blog.
 * Agreed - this is a blog, but it meets the reliability criteria specified in the WP:IRS guidelines.
 * Not good enough for WP:WEB.
 * The journalist who wrote the article is the perfect example for WP:IRS - see his credentials http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/01/meet_the_gang.html#freedman.
 * http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/key-degrees-of-difference/story-e6frg6xf-1111117145189
 * Unreliable opinion piece.
 * This is a report, not an opinion piece - opinion pieces are listed under 'commentary'.
 * It's listed as an opinion piece.
 * Where is it listed as an opinion piece ? It is clearly marked as a story - see the url.
 * http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/04/whos-crus-daddy
 * Blog.
 * Agreed - this is a blog, but it seems to meet the reliability criteria specified in the WP:IRS guidelines. The correspondent appears to be a professional, but it's hard to tell for sure.
 * Professional what? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Professional journalist as per the WP:IRS guidelines.
 * Cadae (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unimpressed. Most of your sources are blogs. Not useful for establishing WP:WEB notability. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at these references SA, but some of your analysis is in error, and your dismissal of all blogs is not warranted, given the WP:IRS guideline "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.". The blogs I've cited above largely fall into this category.
 * There are multiple notable references to the surfacestations project and this establishes WP:WEB notability Cadae (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've criticized your criticisms. You simply haven't established outside notability in the way we usually demand for WP:WEB. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) the only mention I found in a gnews hit was which is a trivial passing mention which depends entirely on the creator of the blog and not the blog itself. Active  Banana    (bananaphone  15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough ghits to establish notability independent of Watts, eg here and here (neither of which even mentions Watts), plus two references, one published, one accepted but not yet published, in J Geophys Res ( and ). Jimmy Pitt   talk  16:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly impressive. The first opinion piece contains such an off-hand reference that I cannot see how it would help us write anything at all. The second is one that advances the position of the website almost as a promotional bit: which is not normally considered solid basis for internet notability for obvious reasons related to WP:PSTS (want to get your website on Wikipedia? Just get an op-ed about it published!) The two publications you reference do not really establish internet notability either, not at least, when I compare them to what's asked for at WP:WEB. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) per ScienceApologist. I am no longer convinced this warrants a separate article at this time. Wikispan (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * merge to Anthony Watts (blogger) LibStar (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Watts' bio. There's really very little here that establishes notability independent of Watts. And while it is mentioned in a few reliable sources, the coverage is not substantive. Guettarda (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2010 (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.