Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:05, 6 February 2023

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 delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations

Climate Assessment Uncertainty Characterizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This highly detailed essay on statistics based on a single source is totally unsuitable material for an encyclopedic article Polargeo (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)]

• Delete POV fork of both Global warming and Global warming controversy Hipocrite (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain with comment I created the article after concessional talk on my talk page, where a prior version was speedy deleted. I suspected the AFD serves and agenda that is not in wiki's best interests. The infant article has sufficient primary and secondary source support now added (will add soon). It meets the necessary requirement for relevant material. There are abundant other articles on wiki for which is it may cross reference, yet it takes on the very important Climate Assessment issues. Frankly the an editor with admitteds ed with COI disagrees (William M. Connolley], the AFD complainer then drive by tags with no talk, and this AFD is unfounded in fact, the AFD should be dismissed. I request admin oversight for the possibly of disruptive editors who are not assuming good faith in the article. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin, even if I usually don't banter that around a lot. Good faith applies to editors, not to articles. And it is somewhat ironic that you complain about other peoples bad faith while demanding good faith yourself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your oversight. Good faith must certainly apply to WP:FIVE. My concerns are for the articles reasonable existence, without a disrutve AFD. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Hipocrite. The whole thing is largely original research and quite frankly also rather unreadable. It should have been speedied. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with KDP. It's unclear what this article aims to achieve. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this article seems to put forth a mostly novel topic. Even if there were citations, the research would still be synthesis of the sources, and unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. The topic is an interesting one to me, and I'd actually enjoy seeing this work continued, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, and should be hosted elsewhere. 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs (talk • contribs)
• Delete (preferrably speedy). Gobbledegook, and what can be interpreted looks like OR. The editor who created this does not understand the subject. Note that the same editor recently created Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment with similar themes which was speedied William M. Connolley (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Except for rewording Examples of Sources of Uncertainty as Uncertainty Source Examples and adding the section References to point to the source, that article was a verbatim copy of the sidebox at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=103. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and yet it was deleted (which is to say the issue wasn't the content per se (well, except it was a copyvio), but the appropriateness). The "theme" is the overwhemling importance (in ZP5's eyes) of Bayesian probability, which ZP5 has been pushing elsewhere , William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, make up your mind, you say my contributes comments are first useless, and then when I try they are POV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

The topic theam is important because wiki climate change articles have neglected it, for reasons I can not seem to find, but for the rash AFD underway. The topic presents a required NPOV, my views are for a NPOV. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - an interesting essay, but any encyclopedic discussion of the uncertainties should be in the articles on the specific reports (e.g. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). I don't see anything useful that can be merged. -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This just isn't an encyclopaedia article. Re-written into more normal English, the article title would be "The characterisation of uncertainty in climate assessment" or "Uncertainty characterisation in climate assessment". On related article in the series on climate assessment might be "Model parameterisation in climate assessment". Another might be "Data processing in climate assessment". Interesting topics, perhaps, but not encyclopaedia articles. The family of "uncertainty characterisation" is even more vast. I don't think we should have articles on "Uncertainty characterisation in population estimates", or economic models, or population viability assessment, or "Uncertainty characterisation in estimates of Misplaced Pages traffic". I don't think topics like these make for very good encyclopaedia articles.

  There's another problem with this article and that is, as William says, it's gobbledegook. It also appears to be OR. In addition, Papa Zulu's response to William's comment sounds to me like the typical justification used for a POVFORK. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - But move it under the user's area until it is expanded a bit. From the list of preceding commentators I see that the gang's all here (a figure of speech). --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC removed my peaceful comment Do not remove, this could be considered talk page edit waring. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is known for such antics but of course he whines when others do it to him, . --GoRight (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Given his comment was within a few minutes I would have thought edit conflict and browser delay more likely. On the other hand I can understand why his patience is running a bit thin. --BozMo talk 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We might, perhaps, move it to User_talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC. Oh, wait... But what is the difference between "move to user area" and "delete"? And why "until it is expanded"? This article is already easily *long* enough to exist. Unless by "expand" you're referring to something other than length? Comprehensibility, perhaps? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

William, your insults are not helpful. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Second GoRight, move it to a userspace, get it cleaned up a bit, take on board the considerations of original research and so forth, and move it back to Wikispace once it's finished. Alex Harvey (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I see absolutely no value in userification here, and I think it would only lead to an MfD which would again end in deletion. Gigs (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Obvious delete. Google's only return on this contorted expression is this article: --BozMo talk 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Try this for Climate Assessment Uncertainty. Scholar may be better. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• comment - it would appear that ZP5 has given up any pretence of serious editing of this article . Can we speedy it now to put it out of its misery? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gobbledygook!! Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

• Delete per nom. The article cited in Nature is very interesting, but this does not constitute a Misplaced Pages article, and there is no evidence of notability of the topic mentioned. Nor does the article say anything much. NBeale (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The two keep !voters have suggested moving this to userspace. The whole article is already in Usertalk space at User talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC including much of the original essay just waiting to return after the AfD. Some of the small bit of information ZP has added during the AfD to try to save the article could have been added to IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as it is very specific to that particular report and not climate assessment uncertainty in general. Polargeo (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As a POV fork of both Global warming and Global warming controversy. Also delete userfied version at User talk:ZuluPapa5/CAUC to stop recreation. Verbal chat 12:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No I think that's too harsh. As I said, the Nature paper cited is interesting and it is possible that some of the ideas here could be re-used or that more refs will come up. NBeale (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary Comment by Article Creator

A “Good Cause” for deleting this article wasn’t sufficiently established with reasonable objections on the article talk or in this AfD. The article is objectively titled and notable because is crosses areas of climate assessment, applied psychology, and error reduction methods. It is supported with the necessarily relevant primary and secondary sources which give a high degree of confidence for its inclusion. It is likely that this AfD may have been a drive-by incident or some form of project war. Wiki will be better to keep it.

As well, the nominator has edited the article but may have neglected pursuing less aggressive dispute resolution, to allow fair development, before nominating. (Post note: The nominator may have indicated this article is a "content fork". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The article had WP:SNOWBALL chances for survival because its content fits in the middle of an overheated climate change project. There may be editors in the project who are acting as if WP:OWN see and disrupting other project articles space and balance with possible prejudice for stalking content they do not create or that fits their POV .

Addressing Concerns

To address the concerns raised in this AfD process, I created a To Do list on the article talk page. I’ve performed over 45 article edits and 30 talk page comments (including ToDos). First, this article cannot be a POV fork: A) because the POV from what is forks was not discussed and B) no other article covers the IPCC guidance methods for climate assessments as like this article does. The article content must stand on its own merits.

• Essay style – I restarted the article and included both primary and secondary source support from highly relevant reliable sources.

• Wikify – Added other sections, sources, See Also. I am drafting a figure to add.

• Cleanup – I corrected my typos and transpositions to the best of my ability.

• Expand – When rewritten, the article was expanded. I have other material drafted and there are other relevant and specific sections that can be included.

• Disambiguation – This article crosses context with climate change, modeling and psychology. The psychology category was added.

• NPOV – I've done my best to keep the article balanced. Difficult to do further without specific comments.

In summary, I’ve improved the article and placed this AfD in a greater context. Given the contention for escalated disputes by long term editors in this project, the AfD reviewer(s) might be cautioned to seek a second opinion before acting. Wiki will be well served to keep this article.

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2009 (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.