221:. 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 Knowledge (XXG). 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.
1170:; 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).)
1103:
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
611:
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
748:
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.
48:. - 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. (
661:, 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,
1234:
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.
1010:
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
421:, 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.
253:
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
1166:. 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
470:=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. --
697:, 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,
435:
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.
629:
158:
300:
723:
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. --
693:
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
119:
278:
152:
960:: "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
938:
912:
1051:"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.
1013:
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
804:: 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.--
396:
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished
Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
605:
679:
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. --
258:
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.
783:
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". --
488:
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.
941:
is a comparatively recent contribution by a sole editor. It itself is fallacious. Notability only exists if it can be demonstrated to exist.
989:
399:
6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
195:
551:
For the reasons mentioned above he fails to meet the notability requirements. Specially the reasons mentioned by Crusio and
Xxanthippe.
370:
since it requires significant third party coverage. If he is notable for his skepticism, then the article needs to demonstrate that.
255:
834:
17:
92:
87:
1244:
1188:
With only 74,000 articles, I would think there's a number of important
Norwegian people that don't yet have articles over there.
96:
636:
79:
173:
49:
140:
712:
1263:
348:
is too narrow. The reason that he and you are here is because he is a climate change sceptic. It is therefore to the
36:
1128:
632:
961:
915:, which argues that "This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability,
594:
570:
to change my opinion based on changes to the article I still think the he fails to meet notability requirements.
1262:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
728:
684:
506:
a higher position but somehow was demoted? Or that he still might reach a higher position before he retires? --
441:
426:
375:
357:
263:
244:
226:
134:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
825:
of this person. There simply aren't enough sources and since this is a biography of a living person we should
217:
This article is a four-year-old stub for an academic with no current evidence that he passes notability under
715:
1248:
1224:
1199:
1194:
1179:
1158:
1136:
1115:
1110:
1089:
1060:
1042:
1001:
973:
950:
932:
895:
863:
842:
838:
813:
792:
778:
758:
732:
706:
688:
670:
640:
621:
579:
560:
542:
515:
497:
479:
445:
430:
412:
379:
361:
336:
332:
314:
292:
267:
248:
230:
207:
130:
61:
1152:
1066:
He is notable because he is prominent enough in his field to be mentioned by the media in many places.
1240:
1175:
1056:
969:
946:
891:
538:
180:
57:
1220:
724:
680:
575:
556:
493:
437:
422:
408:
371:
353:
259:
240:
239:
The essential facts about this person seem to check out and there seems to be adequate notability.
222:
166:
859:
83:
957:
830:
766:
628:
Err - the symposium he was convener of was 1 (AAA-1) out of 200+ symposia held at the 33'rd IGC
366:
Right now the only sources for his skepticism are from his own website, which isn't usable for
1189:
1105:
997:
928:
774:
702:
666:
617:
328:
310:
288:
203:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
873:
530:
418:
391:
345:
324:
218:
1067:
1020:
1016:
788:
754:
511:
475:
1212:
1145:
1124:
908:
877:
851:
822:
590:
417:
A museum head is definitely not the same as a named chair or distinguished professor. Per
367:
349:
146:
1236:
1171:
1052:
965:
942:
887:
601:
534:
466:
lists 10 publications that have been cited 158 times. Highest citation counts 47, 30, 24 (
53:
609:
1216:
597:
571:
552:
489:
463:
404:
711:
This has been debated in several places over time. However, going to primary sources,
658:
855:
806:
694:
75:
67:
993:
924:
770:
718:
698:
662:
613:
306:
284:
199:
1144:- Per research by user:Silver seren, which qualifies topic notability per meeting
113:
913:
Knowledge (XXG):Abuse of the
General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
784:
769:
says: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." --
750:
507:
471:
390:
He was the head of a museum dedicated to his field of study for 12 years. From
721:
467:
1167:
821:. Lack of notability makes it impossible to write an appropriate
1256:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
600:, generally a RS. Also a number of public presentations such as
301:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
907:
at least two editors have argued for deletion based on
568:
109:
105:
101:
165:
886:
push him over the bar of either of these guidelines.
604:, presented in 2009. Segastad was a convener for the
1215:. Good work on redoing the article, Silver Seren. --
850:being wrong is not sufficient to be notable. Fails
833:is not acceptable when it comes to living people).
179:
882:Having his work cited by other AGW skeptics does
631:, you make it sound as rather more than it is. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1266:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1104:one of the prime skeptics of climate change.
8:
299:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:list of Science-related deletion discussions
277:Note: This debate has been included in the
964:essay for move to user space, by the way.
298:
276:
529:. No evidence of passing any category of
502:I don't follow you. Do you mean that he
323:Can Colonel Warden let us know which of
327:he sees Segalstad as meeting, and why?
256:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
988:This article has been nominated for
593:. He has a published secondary cite
194:This article has been nominated for
608:"Metallogeny of the Arctic Region"
24:
606:International Geological Congress
1:
392:Knowledge (XXG):PROF#Criteria
325:Knowledge (XXG):PROF#Criteria
1249:01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1225:01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1200:16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1180:12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1159:10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1137:05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1116:04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1090:03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1061:03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1043:02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
1002:00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
974:07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
951:04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
933:04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
896:17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
864:10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
843:14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
814:15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
793:15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
779:15:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
759:15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
733:20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
707:14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
689:04:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
671:02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
641:02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
622:00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
596:as a climate skeptic in the
580:12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
561:21:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
543:21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
516:21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
498:21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
480:20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
446:21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
431:21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
413:20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
380:00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
362:21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
350:general notability guideline
337:20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
315:20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
293:20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
268:20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
249:20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
231:03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
208:00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
62:15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
1127:. Good job Silver Seren. —
911:. Please note the essay at
1283:
919:a guideline for presuming
567:Although I was contacted
1259:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
765:It's worth noting that
352:that we should look.
956:It also contradicts
612:them by much. Best,
602:this powerpoint talk
589:per Warden and the
1155:
44:The result was
1157:
1151:
1004:
812:
317:
304:
295:
282:
210:
50:non-admin closure
1274:
1261:
1197:
1192:
1156:
1153:Northamerica1000
1149:
1133:
1131:CharlieEchoTango
1113:
1108:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1017:Lawrence Solomon
984:
962:WP:wikilawyering
811:
305:
283:
190:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1264:deletion review
1257:
1195:
1190:
1150:
1129:
1111:
1106:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
633:Kim D. Petersen
126:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1280:
1278:
1269:
1268:
1252:
1251:
1228:
1227:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1183:
1182:
1161:
1139:
1118:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1046:
1045:
1005:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
954:
921:non-notability
899:
898:
866:
854:, per others.
845:
816:
798:
797:
796:
795:
762:
761:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
725:Stephan Schulz
681:Stephan Schulz
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
598:Financial Post
583:
582:
564:
563:
546:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
483:
482:
464:Web of Science
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
438:David Eppstein
423:Dragons flight
402:
401:
400:
397:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
372:Dragons flight
296:
273:
272:
271:
270:
260:Dragons flight
223:Dragons flight
214:
212:
211:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1279:
1267:
1265:
1260:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1160:
1154:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
879:
875:
871:
867:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
846:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
815:
809:
808:
803:
800:
799:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
763:
760:
756:
752:
747:
744:
743:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
716:
713:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
695:National Post
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
672:
668:
664:
660:
657:Hi, Kim. Per
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:
588:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:
524:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
459:
458:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
403:
398:
395:
394:
393:
389:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
316:
312:
308:
302:
297:
294:
290:
286:
280:
275:
274:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
220:
215:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Tom Segalstad
73:
72:
69:
68:Tom Segalstad
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1258:
1255:
1239:
1231:
1208:
1163:
1141:
1130:
1120:
1100:
1068:
1021:
1012:
1007:
994:Pete Tillman
985:
937:The "essay"
925:Pete Tillman
920:
916:
904:
883:
869:
868:
847:
835:76.119.90.74
826:
818:
805:
801:
771:Pete Tillman
745:
699:Pete Tillman
663:Pete Tillman
614:Pete Tillman
586:
548:
526:
503:
460:
329:AndyTheGrump
320:
236:
216:
213:
200:Pete Tillman
191:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
939:referred to
829:to delete (
153:free images
1237:Sp33dyphil
1172:ASCIIn2Bme
1053:Xxanthippe
966:ASCIIn2Bme
943:Xxanthippe
888:ASCIIn2Bme
535:Xxanthippe
54:Off2riorob
1217:DThomsen8
1164:Weak keep
572:IRWolfie-
553:IRWolfie-
490:Q Science
405:Q Science
307:• Gene93k
285:• Gene93k
958:WP:FAILN
872:. Fails
856:86.** IP
831:WP:FAILN
807:Milowent
767:WP:FAILN
120:View log
905:Comment
874:WP:PROF
827:default
746:Comment
531:WP:Prof
468:h-index
419:WP:PROF
346:WP:PROF
321:Comment
219:WP:PROF
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1213:WP:GNG
1191:Silver
1168:e24.no
1146:WP:GNG
1125:WP:GNG
1107:Silver
990:rescue
923:." --
909:WP:GNG
878:WP:GNG
870:Delete
852:WP:GNG
848:Delete
823:WP:BLP
819:Delete
785:Crusio
751:Crusio
591:WP:GNG
549:Delete
527:Delete
508:Crusio
472:Crusio
461:Delete
368:WP:GNG
354:Warden
241:Warden
196:rescue
131:Google
97:delete
1196:seren
1112:seren
1085:Focus
1038:Focus
986:Note:
192:Note:
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1232:Keep
1221:talk
1211:per
1209:Keep
1176:talk
1142:Keep
1123:per
1121:Keep
1101:Keep
1057:talk
1008:Keep
998:talk
970:talk
947:talk
929:talk
892:talk
876:and
860:talk
839:talk
802:Keep
789:talk
775:talk
755:talk
729:talk
703:talk
685:talk
667:talk
659:WP:N
637:talk
618:talk
587:Keep
576:talk
557:talk
539:talk
512:talk
494:talk
476:talk
442:talk
427:talk
409:talk
376:talk
358:talk
333:talk
311:talk
289:talk
264:talk
245:talk
237:Keep
227:talk
204:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
1015:by
917:not
884:not
504:had
181:TWL
118:– (
1243:•
1235:--
1223:)
1178:)
1148:.
1135:—
1063:.
1059:)
1019:.
1000:)
992:.
972:)
949:)
931:)
894:)
862:)
841:)
810:•
791:)
777:)
757:)
749:--
731:)
720:,
717:,
714:,
705:)
687:)
669:)
639:)
620:)
578:)
559:)
541:)
533:.
514:)
496:)
478:)
444:)
429:)
411:)
378:)
360:)
335:)
313:)
303:.
291:)
281:.
266:)
247:)
229:)
206:)
198:.
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:)
1245:©
1241:©
1219:(
1174:(
1082:m
1079:a
1076:e
1073:r
1070:D
1055:(
1035:m
1032:a
1029:e
1026:r
1023:D
996:(
968:(
953:.
945:(
927:(
890:(
880:.
858:(
837:(
787:(
773:(
753:(
727:(
701:(
683:(
665:(
635:(
616:(
574:(
555:(
545:.
537:(
510:(
492:(
474:(
440:(
436:—
425:(
407:(
374:(
356:(
331:(
309:(
287:(
262:(
243:(
225:(
202:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.