Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Audit (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:10, 27 April 2010

Climate Audit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We need to take this through an afd, since some people insist the content should be deleted. I don't see any agreement on that. Nsaa (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: After the AFD-request the page has been altered again. The AFD is about this version, not the current one as of 2010-04-10T22:30. Nsaa (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Well, the above is a trifle disingenuous. In fact the article was restored to the version that has been stable for a year now William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are disruptive with your removal of the content over and over again. Are you afraid that people may find more and better sources for the article? It's bad [1] and again [2]. (hint you see the small print above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL?) Nsaa (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no deletion, no redirect. This is a well sourced article and adheres to Wikipedia:WEB and WP:GNG. Nsaa (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no deletion, no redirect. Both are notable enough for their own articles mark nutley (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as is now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, weakly favor: I generally prefer to lump rather than split. Pete Tillman (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as before. Climate Audit gains its notability because Stephen McIntyre writes it, and McI is notable because of his involvement in the Hockey stick controversy... it has no notability by itself. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article's "full state" that is being deliberated can be found here, as opposed to the current redirect. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems apparent that Climate Audit has no notability independent of its sole proprietor. It might be different if it was a group blog, but it's not. Compare the much more widely read The Daily Dish, which redirects to its author, Andrew Sullivan. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - since the article was merged into Stephen McIntyre a year ago, we can't delete this article alone without deleting both articles. So either the parent article needs to be added here, or this needs to be closed on procedural grounds. This appears to be a "Request for de-merging" (see here) and not a real deletion nom, and is, IMO, outside the scope of AFD. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point. I thought there was something not quite right about this AfD - I couldn't put my finger on it, but I was considering suggesting that it should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect and slap nominator with a trout. Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. Climate Audit is an extremely WikiNotable blog and Wikipedia definitely should cover it. But the best place to cover it is in our Stephen McIntyre article, IMO: it is better, both for our readers and for editors, to have one not-particularly-long article than two shortish articles. CWC 03:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail by good sources such as Assessing climate change. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give a flying fuck The article wasn't "deleted by redirect" as Nsaa claims on the CA talk page, it was merged. The redirect cannot be simply deleted since content was actually merged from the Climate Audit article to the Stephen McIntyre article and it wasn't simply redirected. To delete the redirect, the McIntrye article would also have to be deleted. This AfD is Nsaa disrupting Wikipedia by proving a point, and this nomination should be speedy closed. Also, many thanks to the nominator who clearly doesn't understand why AfD is for, and for wasting everyone's time with pointless bureaucracy. You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge. -Atmoz (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Going after the person when you are short of arguments ("You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge"). For the first. You may be aware that I nominated the article for deletion (and it's disputed content), not the prior redirect. It was no merge discussion at the talk page, It was just done without any discussion (this is the only mentioning of it after it happend Talk:Climate_Audit#Redirecting). I didn't in fact see it before now (yes I have not followed every article in this area, and I think that's the case for most people with day work, contributing here. Nsaa (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that your English sucks and you think you can contribute to the English Wikipedia is your problem, not mine. You don't see me trying to contribute to the Greek Wikipedia. As mentioned on the talk page, there is no requirement needed before a merge takes place. If you don't understand that, please read up on the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As I mentioned, the article cannot be deleted unless the Stephen McIntyre article is also deleted. The content was NOT DELETED. It was simply moved to a different article. IT WAS NOT DELETED. This AfD serves no purpose, because the article cannot be deleted. Also, your edit summary of "AGF" is pointless. I'm not assuming anything. Simply mentioning that your English needs work. Also, if you actually read my comment you'd notice that my comment was not Ad hom. It is that the nominator doesn't understand the English Wikipedia's policy on deletion and how that differs from merging. An Ad hom would be, "Nsaa is stupid, therefore delete." My argument is, "Nsaa doesn't understand the difference between merging and deleting, therefore this AfD should be closed." If you want to de-merge it, use the talk page. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Don't give a flying fuck''' The article wasn't "deleted by redirect" as Nsaa claims on the CA talk page, it was merged. The redirect cannot be simply deleted since content was actually merged from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_Audit&diff=268778215&oldid=256691539 Climate Audit] article to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre&action=historysubmit&diff=268778473&oldid=263324524 Stephen McIntyre] article and it wasn't simply redirected. To delete the redirect, the McIntrye article would also have to be deleted. This AfD is Nsaa disrupting Wikipedia by proving a point, and this nomination should be speedy closed. Also, many thanks to the nominator who clearly doesn't understand why AfD is for, and for wasting everyone's time with pointless bureaucracy. You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 17:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 *:Nice one. Going after the person when you are short of arguments ("You should also brush up on your English and learn the difference between a redirect and a merge"). For the first. You may be aware that I nominated the article for deletion (and it's disputed content), not the prior redirect. It was no merge discussion at the talk page, It was just done without any discussion (this is the only mentioning of it after it happend [[Talk:Climate_Audit#Redirecting]]). I didn't in fact see it before now (yes I have not followed every article in this area, and I think that's the case for most people with day work, contributing here. [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa]] ([[User talk:Nsaa|talk]]) 21:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
+*::The fact that your '''English''' sucks and you think you can contribute to the '''English''' Wikipedia is your problem, not mine. You don't see me trying to contribute to the Greek Wikipedia. As mentioned on the talk page, there is no requirement needed before a merge takes place. If you don't understand that, please read up on the '''English''' Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As I mentioned, the article cannot be deleted unless the [[Stephen McIntyre]] article is also deleted. The content was NOT DELETED. It was simply moved to a different article. IT WAS NOT DELETED. This AfD serves no purpose, because the article cannot be deleted. Also, your edit summary of "AGF" is pointless. I'm not assuming anything. Simply mentioning that your '''English''' needs work. Also, if you actually read my comment you'd notice that my comment was not Ad hom. It is that the nominator doesn't understand the '''English''' Wikipedia's policy on deletion and how that differs from merging. An Ad hom would be, "Nsaa is stupid, therefore delete." My argument is, "Nsaa doesn't understand the difference between merging and deleting, therefore this AfD should be closed." If you want to de-merge it, use the talk page. -[[User:Atmoz|Atmoz]] ([[User talk:Atmoz|talk]]) 22:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)