Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Segalstad


 * 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. - ten vote comments for keep - Since the nomination the article and citations have been largely improved. No delete comments for the last four days. As far as notability goes, comments seem to assert, if he fails WP:PROF after the article improvement he passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Segalstad

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is a four-year-old stub for an academic with no current evidence that he passes notability under WP:PROF. His main claim to notability, as far as I can tell, is that he has chosen to challenge the conventional thinking on climate change. I'm of mixed feelings about whether being an associate professor who promotes unorthodox views is by itself enough of a reason to give someone an article in Wikipedia. I'm launching this AFD to see what other people think on the issue, and perhaps see if other people can expand the article to give a clearer sense of his notability if it exists. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The essential facts about this person seem to check out and there seems to be adequate notability. Warden (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Adequate notability based on what exactly? From the ISI database I can only find twelve journal articles in a multi-decade career, much of which seems to have been spent as a museum curator rather than an academic per se.  If we are basing it on Notability (academics) he would seem to be a clear fail.  If we are basing it on his climate change views, then the article should explain why his views are so notable.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Can Colonel Warden let us know which of PROF he sees Segalstad as meeting, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PROF is too narrow. The reason that he and you are here is because he is a climate change sceptic.  It is therefore to the general notability guideline that we should look. Warden (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now the only sources for his skepticism are from his own website, which isn't usable for WP:GNG since it requires significant third party coverage. If he is notable for his skepticism, then the article needs to demonstrate that.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He was the head of a museum dedicated to his field of study for 12 years. From PROF
 * 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
 * 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * Q Science (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A museum head is definitely not the same as a named chair or distinguished professor. Per WP:PROF, criteria 6 is generally intended for university Presidents, Chancellors, and comparable positions, but does not usually include Provosts / Deans / Department Heads, etc.  I would suggest that Museum Head is not a high enough level position to qualify. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Head of a major independent national museum might count, I think, but in this case the museums he led seem to have been parts of a larger university, so I agree that that's not really what that criterion is aiming at. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Web of Science lists 10 publications that have been cited 158 times. Highest citation counts 47, 30, 24 (h-index=7), hence no evidence of major impact on his field. Does not meet any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. #5 certainly does not refer to a position as associate professor and #6 refers to presidents of universities and such. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that he is currently an associate professor does not mean that that is the highest level reached. After all, he is about 62 years old. Q Science (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't follow you. Do you mean that he had a higher position but somehow was demoted? Or that he still might reach a higher position before he retires? --Crusio (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of passing any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete For the reasons mentioned above he fails to meet the notability requirements. Specially the reasons mentioned by Crusio and Xxanthippe. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I was contacted to change my opinion based on changes to the article I still think the he fails to meet notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Warden and the  WP:GNG. He has a published secondary cite  as a climate skeptic in the Financial Post, generally a RS. Also a number of public presentations such as this powerpoint talk, presented in 2009. Segastad was a convener for the International Geological Congress "Metallogeny of the Arctic Region"  symposium in 2008. a significant professional achievement. And many, many mentions (pro and con) in the blogosphere, for what they're worth. We don't generally set the bar for Wiki-notability very high, and Segalstad seems to me to meet our minimum notability guidelines, though perhaps not exceeding them by much. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Err - the symposium he was convener of was 1 (AAA-1) out of 200+ symposia held at the 33'rd IGC, you make it sound as rather more than it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Kim. Per WP:N, notability is (to a degree) cumulative, and Segastad does have quite a number of (smallish) achievements. For geologists, the IGC is a pretty big deal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 200+ wiki-notable geologists in attendance. Maybe S. was #199? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the Financial Post is a RS in general may be debatable. However, it has been well established that Solomon's series in particular is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stephan, do you have a link to a RS discussion of this series? Or more details of your objection? I was confused by the FP masthead -- apparently this is part of Solomon's series that ran in the National Post, a sister newspaper. I recall something about a couple of scientists disputing their characterizations as "deniers," but the Solomon profiles I've read of scientists I'm familiar with seemed fair and reasonable. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been debated in several places over time. However, going to primary sources,, , , should be plenty of evidence that this series does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also note that the series originally was published as opinion pieces, not straight reporting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with Colonel Warden: as WP:PROF itself says, if a person is notable per WP:GNG, then that trumps everything else. Having said this, even if accepting the "Solomon reference" about which others express doubts, then I still don't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG. --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that WP:FAILN says: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's unclear. At this point, things are clear enough: "I still don't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG" means: "not notable". --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: By virtue of being a wrong-headed climate change denier, it is somewhat inevitable that an otherwise non-distinguishable academic exceeds the WP:GNG bar.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of notability makes it impossible to write an appropriate WP:BLP of this person. There simply aren't enough sources and since this is a biography of a living person we should default to delete (WP:FAILN is not acceptable when it comes to living people). 76.119.90.74 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete being wrong is not sufficient to be notable. Fails WP:GNG, per others. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. [See update below.] Having his work cited by other AGW skeptics does not push him over the bar of either of these guidelines. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment at least two editors have argued for deletion based on WP:GNG. Please note the essay at Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions, which argues that "This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability, not a guideline for presuming non-notability." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "essay" referred to is a comparatively recent contribution by a sole editor. It itself is fallacious. Notability only exists if it can be demonstrated to exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC).
 * It also contradicts WP:FAILN: "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives." which is part of the GNG guideline. I've nominated that WP:wikilawyering essay for move to user space, by the way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He is mentioned as a notable scientists for his beliefs against global warming. Click the Google News Archive search link at the top of the AFD and you can see his name listed for that in places.  Google book search has results as well, such as listing him in The deniers: the world renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud and those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon.   D r e a m Focus  02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "He's notable because he's a climate change denier" is just as much rejected as a cause of notability as "She's notable because she's a woman" always has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC).
 * He is notable because he is prominent enough in his field to be mentioned by the media in many places.  D r e a m Focus  03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've gone ahead and reformatted the entire article, fixed the references, and also added a number of other references and information to the article from secondary news sources. It's quite clear that he is notable, as he is discussed, interviewed, and otherwise noted extensively in the media as being one of the prime skeptics of climate change. Silver  seren C 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Good job Silver Seren. — CharlieEchoTango  — 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per research by user:Silver seren, which qualifies topic notability per meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He seems to be notable in Norway for his public opposition as evidenced by the multiple articles which talk about that. Some of the coverage of him in Norwegian papers is no more than a sentence or two, but there's an interview with him in e24.no; the way that article starts, it makes it look like the editorial line of that publication is in the skeptical camp. Still, I suppose he is somewhat notable in Norway in general because of the published reactions to his stance. (I'm still a little suspicious because he has no page in the nowiki(s).) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * With only 74,000 articles, I would think there's a number of important Norwegian people that don't yet have articles over there. Silver  seren C 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Good work on redoing the article, Silver Seren. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has a list of good-quality sources, which I think is sufficient enough for a keep. Also, contradiction to the conventional thinking on climate change is notable in itself, as nearly all scientists agree on the matter, according to a book I've read. --Sp33dyphil © • © 01:11, 31 October 2011 (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.