Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball

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, particularly as it's a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ball (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)

The regional newspaper used to create this article does not contribute to establishing notability. The argument given here [1] is a classic

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 15:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The Western Producer is Canada's largest agricultural publication. I can add material from Canada's mainstream right-wing media. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Sun News: [2] [3] [4] Puget Sound Radio [5] Books : [6] [7] Canadian Press, Canada's largest news wire service: [8] National Post: [9] Ottawa Citizen: [10] Georgia Straight: [11] London (Canada) Free Press: [12] New York Times (behind paywall): Climate Scientist Sues Skeptic for Libel - NYTimes.com‎ New York Times - Feb 8, 2011 Andrew Weaver, a climate modeler at the University of Victoria, filed the lawsuit against Tim Ball, a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg ... I think this deals with the notability issue.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need independent sources known for their reliability, not opinion pieces, vanity press climate skeptic books which Ball helped write and other pieces he wrote.

talk) 23:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Stairway Press may publish right-wing stuff but it looks like it is not a vanity press. Here's their catalogue (click "booktore"). http://www.stairwaypress.com/bookstore/And the NYT piece is hardly an opinion piece, nor are most of the pieces I've cited. And even the opinion pieces have enough coverage of him to show notability. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at

talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Highest GS cite is 10. Way below required in highly cites field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The lack of cites also strains the credibility of unreliable self-published sources which claim he was the first in Canada in the field.

talk) 23:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is notability. He has lots of it, from Canadian media and the New York Times. The reason I started the page was because I went to Wikipedia and wanted to find out about the guy after seeing a media piece. Notability is clearly established: Canadian newspapers, the New York Times, etc. I suspect some people just can't stand the idea of a page on this guy. Sure he may be full of sh@t, but he is well known.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The NYTimes references are enough. Spooky, it would help if you added them to the article, not just here. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had just started the article when it was put up for deletion. I don't want to invest the time if this guy is, effectively, barred from having a Wikipedia page. I think there's lots to work with in terms of developing what his platform is and examining criticism of it (and him, since there's a lot of debate about his credentials and scholarship.) But I think notability is established quite well, and that's the criteria. I think the Google Scholar count is a red herring, since Ball is obviously an activist using his PhD as a credential, rather than an academic scientist. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm not sure why a NYT Blog about a single event (being sued) would help with notability; that sounds like a

talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)\[reply

]

Obviously it was considered by the NYT to be notable enough for its world-wide readership. And it's one of many stories and pieces, including all those from the Canadian media, that suggest people have heard of this person. You really seem quite determined to keep Ball off Wikipedia. Presumably he is so not-notable that you have no idea who he is, never heard of him before you stumbled across the stub page mere minutes after it was posted and put it up for immediate deletion, yet seem aware of the criticisms raised against him (which should be dealt with in the article). You are are downplaying MS media articles and denigrating a very large amount of media coverage. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms raised agaisnt him? You want to have an entire article which is about Tim Ball being sued by someone else? Being sued by someone who's barely notable isn't a great demonstration of notability, it's a

talk) 21:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• This article went for deletion before under
  talk) 21:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There were an awful lot of keeps there, and for very good reasons. I'm adding a whole lot more here. Here's a Globe and Mail piece on him (reproduced in a web site because the Globe archives are behind a paywall.) A full-page piece in Canada's leading national newspaper has got to count for something: http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html.

Here's something from Canwest wirre service, the in-house wire service of the dailies in most of the country's major cities: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

The Calgary Herald: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

The New York Times (story this time): http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html

Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html

London Ontario Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html

Canada.com (website for Canada's major big-city newspaper chain, publishing story from print editions): http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068

The Windsor Star: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630

El Salvador Times: http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948

L'Express (Paris): http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html

Westefalenpost (Germany): http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.html

Arizona Daily Star (behind paywall): http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON

Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html

TAZ (Germany): http://www.taz.de/!44330/

Faux News (again): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html

New york Sun: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/

I hope this is enough. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citing material from a previous AfD where the article was deleted (and after review), where the coverage was already determined to be a series of passing mentions etc etc, is hardly a convincing way to start arguing,

talk) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not material from a previous Afd, it's stuff I just collected through Google Archives. Most of these articles are hardly "passing references". Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You include a quote, but it's nothing that I said. I said passing mentions, and that's exactly what these give. The mention his name in a big list of others, or they mention him in passing, etc etc.

talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

We have a full-page story from the most important paper in Canada. We have a feature on him from Canada's largest circulation newspaper. We have him quoted in a story in the New York Times that reports on a conference in which he's a main speaker. He's talked about/mentioned/quoted in papers from three continents. He's interviewed and talked about on major TV networks in Canada and the US. He's quoted in German and El Salvadorian newspapers. He far and away meets notability criteria. Seriously, you're just starting to look like someone with an emotional investment. You can't possibly go through all that material and say that no one has taken notice of this person. It's beyond ludicrous. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional investment is not something I generally have while editing, that would require I know something about Tim Ball, show me the sources that provide the significant coverage so I know something about him; because so far as I can see they don't exist. So far no source has been shown that gives coverage (and your full page-story was a blog, not a news item). showing content he wrote doesn't contribute to notability, showing quotes of his doesn't add to notability etc etc. Look at the notability requirements. You need to meet

talk) 13:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You are no longer grasping at straws. You've your hands on, at best, a spider web. Quit throwing Wiki spells around. I read

WP:BASIC and the stories above and make up their mind, no matter whether they vehemently disagree with Ball or not. Simple as that.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A one line mention does not count towards coverage. Read the requirements again; they have to be the subject of the article, or at the very least a significant chunk of it to count towards anything.

talk) 09:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You really think you can still argue, after going through all that press coverage and the books he's co-authored -- and I assume, on good faith, that you've done this -- that Ball is not notable. Half the people who have bios on Wikipedia have nowhere near this much media exposure.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can. I suggest you re-read policy about what is required. Passing mentions and non-independent sources don't contribute to

talk) 13:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I take it features on the guy in Canada's two most important papers and coverage in more than one New York Times article covering a conference at which he's the main speaker, along with all those other quotes and interviews in that very long list of links looks like "passing mentions" to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoonkymonkey (talk • contribs)

Look, it's quite easy, and I have considerable experience at AfD so arguing that I don't know what I'm talking about isn't going to get you far: you need to show a source which discusses details about him in detail, and you need to show that

talk) 16:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Here are two:

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

A full-page, newspaper section front piece in Canada's leading national newspaper (reprinted on the author's blog so it's not behind a paywall): http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html.

Either you're not actually looking at the linked material provided, or you are counting on people not bothering to do so.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only glanced through it because you are setting the burden arbitrarily high by pasting walls, I like at a few, then stop.

talk) 09:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, pretty much for the reasons given by IRWolfie. The suggestion of notability seems to be only for being controversial, not for having anything notable to say. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they have "nothing notable to say". Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that Tim Ball is notable for any reason other than being controversial, please do so. So far you have not. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely absurd, based on the links to media coverage Spoonkymonkey (talk)

The "media coverage" you link to is just that — the popular "media". The sample I looked at were all focused on climate change, and specifically the so-called "skeptical" view. As you cite nothing showing that he is notable for anything else, then his notability (as such) is, as I said before, only for being controversial. Perhaps you should note that just because you agree with him (?) does not make him notable, nor is any reason for waiving our requirement for notability. However, I do not intend to debate this with you. You are not persuasive; my delete stands. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's notable as an often-quoted ACC skeptic with a PhD who claims expertise on the climate change issue, and has succeeded in convincing some media and politicians -- particularly those on the ACC skeptic side of the debate -- that he has expertise on the issue. Finally, it's getting through. He doesn't have to be notable for anything else, unless high profile ACC skeptic is not part of the discourse. And if excluding material sourced from the popular media was the norm on Wikipedia, the site would be a 2000-word web page. The issue is notability. There's scads of media on the guy. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. The extreme exaggeration of your last statement shows you are not in serious discussion. If you want to have a serious discussion then you need to acknowledge that politicians and the popular "media" do not determine objective reality. And that (according to the article) Tim Ball is a historical geographer, whose PhD is in historical geography. And that the sole source for this entire three sentence article is a single web page whose url promotes a

It take it you didn't do something difficult, like, say, clicking the link. If you had, you would have seen that the words "biggest deception in history" are in quotes in the headline of the story. If you had truly strained yourself and actually read the story -- and I know that's asking an awful lot, perhaps too much -- you would have seen that the headline writer is quoting Ball from a speech he gave, which is reported on at length in that publication. I wonder why it's too much to ask people to actually read the coverage instead of, as in this case, looking at a URL and considering that as "evidence". There's plenty of stuff in that very large amount of media coverage from three continents to do an entry. And, again, popular media is certainly useful for, and used for, for Wikipedia entries. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you to be civil and leave off the gibes. The headline fairly reflects the gist of the story, and as that is the sole source for this article it is also a fair inference that the

WP:FRINGE opinion expressed is the sole basis of your claimed notability. As you have not strained yourself to provide any other basis, or to understand the fundamental WP policies, you are just spinning your wheels. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Really? Or do you just want to tailor Wikipedia to your biases and ignore the idea that not all people share your complete devotion to the idea that ACC is "settled science"? I see that you are one of the notorious climate change cops who won't even acknowledge the fact that there are people who do not buy the IPCC consensus. I want Wikipedia to be a place where people can learn about all the players in the debate, and, no matter how hard you try to ignore the very substantial amount of coverage I've provided -- and was not offered in the last Afd -- your POV does not own Wikipedia.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop the rants about climate change and focus on making arguments from wikipedia policy and guidelines.

talk) 09:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have made those arguments. You've chosen to ignore them, lest facts get in the way of your prejudices.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a non-notable professor's gut opinions on climate qualify him for an article, but not the gut opinions of my non-notable local plumber? "Fake expert" media coverage?

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Prove it. Use the large amount of material that I've posted to prove your argument. No one is interested in your opinion. Do some work.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is interested in doing your work for you, so stop with the attacks please. You pasted a load of shoddy sources, and its a lot of pointless work to shift through it. If you have some choice selections, paste those, but large pastes of poor quality sources is disruptive. I also suggest you read

talk) 09:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The NYT article mentioning him getting sued is a lonely blip on the radar of an otherwise unremarkable career, and is far too little to justify a free-standing article on. The rest of the sources provided do not add up to much in terms of establishing notability according to our guidelines, even if taken together. A textbook case of

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Read

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Brief mentions do not equal substabntial coverage. All I see is brief mentions, and nothing resembling a feature article on Ball himself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

More WP:WIKISPELLS. Both the Globe piece and the Star article are feature stories about Ball. The Globe article examines his influence on Canadian policy. The NYT story is about a conference where Ball is a man speaker.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The star article is a brief one-sentence mention. The Globe article is in a "public interest" insert (Focus) that is not reliable for serious news material on either politics or science. It's more for entertainment, kind of like "Parade" in the States. Not serious enough to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either you don't know what you're talking about or trying to pass a bald-faced lie off on people who don't know the Canadian media. The Globe section is a main news/features section, not some kind of advertorial, in the most respected paper in the country. The story was the Winner, 2006 citation from the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. The Star 'sentence' is an abstract of a pay to view article.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop pasting walls of unreliable sources and passing mentions. It doesn't help your case.

talk) 21:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The New York Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun and a slew of other papers are "unreliable sources?? Quit censoring my comments or i'll take this to arbcomm.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoonkymonkey, you need to demonstrate there is significant coverage by picking 4 or 5 choice articles, not the walls of sources. you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, and actually read our policies about notability. And can you also work on your indentation, you are disrupting the flow of the discussions (I fixed it).

talk) 09:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. The article is supported by a single source and, despite that source, ends up failing
  WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

He's switched sources, but same result. Spoonkymonkey: please do pay attention. You are NOT helping your cause. You really need to stop, and pay attention to what everyone is telling you. You are only frustrating your self, and annoying everyone else. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lot of URLs have been thrown around so far. I'm figuring that by now after nearly a week of vigorous debate, all the best possible sources that could be brought have been. I pulled all the URLs provided so far, removed the duplicates and placed them in the table below. I went to and read each one and provided my comment about the quality of the source for its usefulness in establishing notability for a
  WP:BLP
  . My !vote will follow.

Zad68 02:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We're looking for multiple independent secondary sources providing in-depth coverage on the subject (in this case, Mr. Ball himself), and the sources don't quite bring it. The sources almost but not quite rise to the standard, so he's a high fail, but still a fail. His is an interesting and notable voice in the climate change debate because he's awell-trained and credentialed climatologist scientist updated
  WP:BLP. I can see including mention of him in one of our climate change articles but there's not enough sourcing to fill out a proper BLP. Zad68 02:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]