Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferenc Miskolczi

Ferenc Miskolczi

Ferenc Miskolczi (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)

No coverage in reliable sources. Low H-index. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. GS h-index of 6 not sufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Climate change stuff is WP:BLP1E. Does not pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Climate change is not an event it is a topic. That criterion is to stop people having an article on themselves when they could be covered quite adequately in an article about the event. And I'm currently disputing the proposer's notion of what a reliable source is elsewhere, do you think there are no reliable sources there? Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The event is, presumably, Miskolczi's resignation from NASA. If I'm the proposer you mention, I'm not aware where you are having a debate with me elsewhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your deletion on the basis of not reliable sources , my questioning Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Ferenc_Miskolczi. I know you think the sources fail RS, I was just wondering if the contributor thought so too. The controversy is clearly about Ferenc Miskolczi rather than just some event he was involved in. Please read WP:BLP1E it is quite short. And he's not just known for resigning. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: Our article cites 4 peer-reviewed articles by Miskolczi, and two substantial news articles in RS's re the controversy over his theoretical climate model -- the latter appears to be what he's mainly known for. I'd never previously heard of him, but he would appear to meet the minimum requirements for the WP:General notability guideline: significant coverage in 2 RS's, and some evidence for prior academic( or similar) performance in Atmospheric physics. Also a rather extensive article rebutting his "Alternative Greenhouse Theory" at Real Climate, a RS for this I think. So it would appear that he is at least marginally notable. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: rebuttal paper is hosted at RC, but is by Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and Piers M. Forster of the School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

4 peer reviewed articles is nothing. PhD students have that. News is related to one event, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:GNG. One event is all it takes for notability, if the other criteria are met. As they seem to be in this case. Pete Tillman (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BLP1E is specifically for showing that one event does not make a person notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You stuck that reply in the wrong place. One event can make a person notable, BLP1e says that they should not have an article separately from the event if they are only notable in connection with the event and did not play a major part. There is no separate event article as this covers their resignation, they did play a major part in their own resignation and the article isn't about just that one event. Quoting BLP1E is just wrong here. Perhaps you misread the each as any in 'when each of three conditions is met'? Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Coverage is only in the context of the event. 2. low profile individual 3. The event is not significant. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone claims this guy is outstandingly notable. But he does seem to meet the minimum WP:General notability guideline, and your counter arguments appear unconvincing. WP:BLP1E clearly doesn't apply, as noted above. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also a rather extensive article rebutting his "Alternative Greenhouse Theory" at Real Climate - I notice that you carefully avoid linking to the claimed article; I don't think there is one on the RC blog. You're perhaps mistaking it for an entry on the much-less-notable RC wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Tillman was referring to this PDF. Jinkinson talk to me 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Improbable, it has nothing to do with RC. I think its more likely he was desperately scrabbling for something that made FM look notable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Looks to me more like you are desperately reaching..... Pete Tillman (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per Xxanthippe, and the fact that the news coverage doesn't even come close to meeting WP:GNG. -- 101.119.29.3 (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Per hus being mentioned in A Short Introduction to Climate Change Cambridge University Press. Mathematics, Applied Science and Real Life Springer. He is also author and co author of a few books. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Being mentioned in a book doesn't fulfil WP:GNG and the mention itself is related to one event. Further, what part of WP:AUTHOR are you claiming they fulfil? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on about "one event"? Please rereread WP:GNG, which makes clear that one event can suffice for Wiki-notability. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when ... reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event ... That person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. .... the event is not significant". These three conditions are met with respect to his leaving NASA. Second Quantization (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• But also read WP:SINGLEEVENT, which is more nuanced. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like he's a poster-boy for the climate change denialists. If kept, much of it should be rewritten from independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: Tons of hits on Google Books that pan out when you read them and verify the publisher, definitely passes GNG. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. You haven't distinguished between non-significant mentions, the WP:BLP1E mentions or otherwise, Second Quantization (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. His mainstream scientific contributions do not have the impact (e.g. citation counts) to pass WP:PROF and his climate change sideline does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:55, 22 February 2014 (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.