Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming 2

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 Delete. Cúchullain t/c 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar system warming

Solar system warming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recent AfD consensus was to redirect; the article has unfortunately been resuscitated. Original rationale for deletion still applies: a textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated in other articles. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis and original research. The term is a neologism that does not appear in the scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.

  • Keep Hi. I started this page again because I thought it was reasonable to do so. I think the article (since my last edit) gave credence to the fact that it warrants an article, fully supported by peer-reviewed, scientific literature. The article I started up again was from scratch, not from the previous article that was nominated for deletion and redirect. The article I created has nothing to do with "solar variations," to which it was original redirected towards. The article I started does not espouse previous claims made in the deleted article. For this reason, I believe it possible to have a sensible article that discusses warming on other celestial bodies that is fully supported by the scientific literature. ~ UBeR 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ambivalent but leaning towards keep (the term itself is a neologism but the concept is plausible; but it must be defined in such a way as to make it clear that there is no evidence for the idea; the article can only (given the current state of science) be about why it doesn't work). However, a couple of comments: I don't think speedy keep is a plausible vote: keep if you like, but there are no grounds for "speedy" such. Its only "speedy" state would be a return to redirect. Also the article isn't from scratch: the Mars bit looks rather familiar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
    • Well, not from scratch, but not copied from the previous deleted article. Mars and Earth bit was summarized from climate of Mars and global warming, respectively. ~ UBeR 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an OR synthesis of information. Please find a single reliable source that ties these events together. I believe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar system warming still largely applies. This should not have been recreated. Someguy1221 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It's quite a different article and is not synthesizing any material. My regards, ~ UBeR 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if it's not blatantly promoting an unfounded theory like the last one, or mixing sources together, I still feel that bundling information from over a dozen sources into a single article is OR. These sources are mostly about the warming of individual heavenly bodies, not solar system warming. So without at least one reliable source claiming each of these is connected, I still think this is synthesis. Someguy1221 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Scientifically, there does not appear to be evidence that the solar system as a whole is warming, so the page is OR/synthesis as it gathers together bits of information about individual planets. Some of that info about each of the planets is interesting and useful but it should go in the planets' individual articles. Now, the topic is notable in a non-scientific way since this is one of the global warming skeptics' standard talking points. Since this is just one of many such talking points I think it would be more appropriate to mention it at Global warming controversy rather than in its own article. If the article is kept, it should probably stick to the skeptics' talking points and discussion of evidence for/against; right now I get the impression that the article took this skeptic argument as a starting point and ran with it—hence OR. --Nethgirb 07:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR synthesis, and restore the redirect to solar variation. A lot of work was done on this article. I see notes that selected bodies in the solar system are warming. Given that they have elliptical orbits, there should be variations: some getting warmer, some getting cooler. Was an exhaustive search done for planets and moons undergoing a cooling cycle, or was there synthesis of reports of increases only? A ref for Jupiter actually argues against solar increases as a cause. There is not a multiplicity of reliable sources saying that some common element is making all the planets warmer, and specifically there is no reference to show that an increase in solar output is causing it. The article title is a neologism, and suggests this may be a POV fork to use as a counterargument against global warming on this planet being a result of human activities. Edison 14:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is arguing the Sun is the cause... Maybe if I say it three times someone will understand: This isn't about debunking global warming. ~ UBeR 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The title prejudices toward that impression, correctly or not. The neologism "solar system warming" immediately evokes the parallel to "global warming." Raymond Arritt 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
        • So be it. I think the title suggested in the talk is a reasonable solution then. ~ UBeR 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and reinstate the redirect. With the dearth of reliable sources on the subject of "solar system warming", the wealth of sources here simply becomes synthesis and is still a form of original research. The author has done a good job on the article but it does not change the fact that the concept of "solar system warming" is one that has not been treated as an academic subjet, has no reliable sources of its own, and as such is not fit for Wikipedia. Perhaps other venues for something like this can be found. Arkyan • (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only because the suggested redirect doesn't reflect the current state of the article. If we're not saying the Sun is necessarily the cause, it seems like a redirect to solar variation doesn't make a lot of sense. And in response to the neologism comments above, a Google Scholar search for "solar system" warming yields 3700 results. "Solar system warming" may not specifically be a scientifically published term, but warming in the Solar System (which would be a fine new name for this page) is clearly something that exists in the literature, as per all of the sources currently on the page. Oren0 06:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources on the page are not about "solar system warming" per se; they are about individual planets. Hence bringing it together and concluding there is solar system warming is original synthesis. As for the redirect, it seems fair to either (1) delete without any redirect, since no reliable scientific evidence has been presented that the solar system is warming; (2) redirect to solar variation since this is the clear implication of the cause of the purported warming when the concept is advanced by GW skeptics. Anyway, it's a bit silly to worry about "the cause" of a nonexistant or unsubstantiated phenomenon. --Nethgirb 07:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and do not redirect. If any of the well-cited facts aren't already in the relevant planets' articles, they should be added there. But as others have said, unless the author can come up with reliable references where the concept of Solar system warming (under whatever name) has been discussed, it is not valid to put the separate facts together like this in Wikipedia - that's what personal websites are for :) Smalljim 16:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (and possibly salt). This is an OR synthesis of (largely doubtful) disconnected factoids. andy 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • delete - switching from ambivalent above. Having tried to work on it, and being hampered by not really knowing what it it supposed to be about, I think the OR/SYN makes sense. Useful info in there should be put together somehow, maybe under a different title William M. Connolley 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable scientific theory--RCT 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Really? No-one else - not even those voting keep - seem to think so. If you know of reputable sources discussing this theory, why have you not added them to the article, since they are glaringly absent? William M. Connolley 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom and comments - it's an original synthesis, appears designed for advocacy. Guettarda 05:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, and do not redirect as an original synthesis designed to advance skepticism about global warming. As others point out above, some of this material may have a home in the articles on the planets/moons, but it shouldn't have an article of its own. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this has been extensively discussed around the internet, usually in relation to global warming eg. [1]. Although the term SSW is not always used, using this as a compact description is not a synthesis, given that the subject itself is notable. Iceage77 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nothing about this article speaks of its being anything by original research, and many of the supporting posts only lend credence to that viewpoint. Internet discussion groups are not reliable sources, and noone can seem to point to reliable scientific sources supporting this article's contention. To the extent that climate change may be due to solar variation, that possibility is best documented at the climate change article itself. --EMS | Talk 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - per previous AfD, above statements by Connolley, and my filters for WP:BOLLOCKS. Michaelbusch 20:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: as I did on the previous incarnation of this article, I attempted to remove irrevalancy, inaccuracy, original research, POV, weasel words, and nonsense from the current version. When I did, I found that there was exactly no article left. So I've left the article as it is for the moment, in the hope that it will be deleted and this time stay deleted. Michaelbusch 20:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is false. Some planets and other local heavenly bodies are heating up. Others are cooling down. Someguy1221 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Which? Just curious. ~ UBeR 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Halley's Comet is cooling down, to give an example. So is Pluto. Note: all planets heating up would not be 'a wonderful information': it would be very bad. Fortunately, this isn't happening. Michaelbusch 19:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ha! So it appears someone is voting to delete an article they haven't even read. How novel. ~ UBeR 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I attempted to find refereed scientific papers on solar system warming at the ADS Abstract Service, but none of the papers that I found use the term "solar system warming" in the sense that it is used in this article. A Google search on the term primarily turns up blogs and other informal websites that cannot be considered reliable references. Since this article cannot be supported by reliable sources, it must be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 07:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The last AFD's result on this article was to redirect to Solar variation#Solar variation theory. — Pious7 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per original reasons. This is a phrase someone might type in. The way, the truth, and the light 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Common — The article title and subject-matter seems to be encroaching on WP:SOAP. If it was only about climate variation or solar variation then I'd be inclined to prefer keep. But this seems to have too much of a polemic agenda. — RJH (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect, this article was recreated and had already gone through an AfD, where the consensus was in favor of a merger. Like before, the article has weak sources. *Cremepuff222* 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually this article has phenomenal sources. It's a shame people never read the articles they vote to delete. A real shame. ~ UBeR 05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep, hmmm, I don't know what I was thinking before. The sources do back up the information pretty well, so I've changed my vote. *Cremepuff222* 20:23, 20 May 2007 (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.