here's one example of the issue |
re Jlevi Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
: Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy [[WP:BASIC]]? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
: Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy [[WP:BASIC]]? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
: For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarold_Ambler&type=revision&diff=951597960&oldid=951588352 this] diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the [[WP:BASIC]] notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
: For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHarold_Ambler&type=revision&diff=951597960&oldid=951588352 this] diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the [[WP:BASIC]] notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. [[User:Jlevi|Jlevi]] ([[User talk:Jlevi|talk]]) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
::The guy has been on TV and radio numerous times, for much more than "soundbites," over several years. I've listed elapsed times and summaries, so pick however many you have time or interest to review. We disagree on what a Q/A interview counts towards, or whether a program is independent of the person being interviewed. -- [[User:Yae4|Yae4]] ([[User talk:Yae4|talk]]) 19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' There are plenty of sources to establish notability.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' There are plenty of sources to establish notability.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:44, 20 April 2020
Harold Ambler
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Harold Ambler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page seems to fail WP:BASIC. The subject seems to fall under WP:BIO1E, with almost all coverage centering on a Huffpost article from 2009. In a related manner, there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, with most appearing near the 2009 date.
My review of the seemingly strongest sources show that they do not cover all necessary criteria to support notability. Interviews tend to be short and promotional, with no in-depth coverage by secondary figures. (There are also some in which Ambler plays a more 'expert' role, but these don't contribute to notability). Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Leaning delete - this is even with the present state of the article being a vast improvement over puffed-up and promotional previous versions, which listed passing mentions in a newsblog as separate paragraphs. BLP1E at best, no evidence of notability, lots of promotional puffery - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CONTN says the "present state of the article," or "Article content" does not determine notability. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's not my argument - it's that it doesn't now, and that this is after cleaning the nonsense out - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- WP:CONTN says the "present state of the article," or "Article content" does not determine notability. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep (article creator). Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Harold_Ambler, and the removal of secondary sourcing leading up to this Afd.[1] Ambler has been covered from 2009 through 2017, in numerous independent, reliable sources (as well as many less reliable blog type secondary sources). Ambler's 2009 piece "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" was the third-most e-mailed blogger piece on The Huffington Post for more than 18 months. His 2009 book, Ever True: The History of Brown Crew, got attention on TV and radio (and is referenced in Wikipedia). His 2011 book, Don't Sell Your Coat, was endorsed by Freeman Dyson (and others): "How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming? Read Don't Sell Your Coat to find out." - Freeman Dyson. In 2012 he was interviewed extensively about his background, books, controversies, science and politics views, etc. on WBLQ radio, and on MRC TV. Not only is there significant secondary coverage, but there is (I think it's called) tertiary coverage of his TV appearance, in a report by Union of Concerned Scientists.[2] In 2009, 2012, and 2013 he was on Fox TV several times for several minutes each for interviews about his views, books, politics, controversies, etc. In 2014 he was a speaker at the Libertarian party National convention. In 2017 his views were covered in a paragraph in The_Spokesman-Review, about equally with Allan_Savory, Michael Crichton and Joel Salatin, as examples of climate skeptics.[3] Ambler got significant attention (pages) in independent books in 2010 and 2014. Plus he has a music career from 2007 to ~present, with some notice in independent reliable sources. So, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but this looks more like WP:SUSTAINED to me anyway. WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied" as it is being misapplied here - See Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you could highlight the top two or three sources that you feel follow the WP:BASIC criteria, that may help subsequent reviewers sort all of this out. Jlevi (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Two specific references are linked in the above comment, both failing WP:BASIC. The first is just one out of four quotes used as an examples of 'denigrating climate science.' This doesn't qualify as significant coverage, and the coverage is primarily of media outlets, rather than of Ambler himself. The second is a single paragraph, and so again fails significant coverage. I don't suggest that these are the strongest sources, but strong sources have not yet been highlighted specifically. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- The stuff cleaned out was a completely standard WP:REFBOMBing, e.g. all the "citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." It wasn't good and didn't add notability - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you could highlight the top two or three sources that you feel follow the WP:BASIC criteria, that may help subsequent reviewers sort all of this out. Jlevi (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Videos and audios are worth thousands of words, so the following videos, and one book at the end: 2009, ~5.5 minutes on Fox News Red Eye re: Ambler's blog, HuffPost piece, why, what happened, his background and experiences, whether people take science and climate seriously, his wife's reaction, musician with interest in sports and climate, celebrities and qualifications, his book Ever True: History of Brown Crew and connection with climate interest, mentions his future book on climate, background as rower and surfer.[4] 2012, 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: book Don't Sell Your Coat, affects on his ability to publish, why a skeptic, what he did to investigate, credentials, celebritites, historical climate perspective, answering questions from 3 panelists, family, environment, pollution, etc.[5] 2012, almost 5 minutes Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: Celebrities Posing as Environmental Experts, influence, pollution, climate trends and calls for reduced CO2 emissions, clarifying CO2 effects and magnitudes in historical context, Keystone pipeline, big oil and fuel benefits, 3rd world, travel.[6] 2012, 22 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: background, Don't Sell Your Coat, background, Q/A...[7] 2012, 24 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: Music career, performing, Q/A, move to Austin and return, connections with climate skepticism reactions... [8] 2012, 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV discussing H. Clinton's visit to the Artic, and climate-related history and manipulation of perceptions, etc.[9] 2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, called a "sensible environmentalist," answered questions and discussed tar sands oil extraction and CO2, Keystone pipeline, Nasa/Hansen, carbon footprints versus moral footprints, benefits of low cost fossil fuels for poor people.[10] and 2014, 3 pages coverage in book The Joy of Hate.[11] -- Yae4 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy WP:BASIC? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. Jlevi (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in this diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the WP:BASIC notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. Jlevi (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- The guy has been on TV and radio numerous times, for much more than "soundbites," over several years. I've listed elapsed times and summaries, so pick however many you have time or interest to review. We disagree on what a Q/A interview counts towards, or whether a program is independent of the person being interviewed. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep There are plenty of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)