Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Segalstad

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

Tom Segalstad

[edit]
Tom Segalstad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Colonel Warden let us know which of Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria he sees Segalstad as meeting, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was the head of a museum dedicated to his field of study for 12 years. From Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Although I was contacted [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This has been debated in several places over time. However, going to primary sources, [5], [6], [7], [8] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment at least two editors have argued for deletion based on WP:GNG. Please note the essay at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Dream Focus 02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"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).[reply]
He is notable because he is prominent enough in his field to be mentioned by the media in many places. Dream Focus 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. SilverserenC 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Good job Silver Seren. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per research by user:Silver seren, which qualifies topic notability per meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Segalstad&oldid=1073125094"