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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 05:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A non-notable conference of global warming deniers in search of media attention. The group this centers on the NIPCC (a name deliberately designed to be confused with the Noble Prize winning IPCC) whose article was AFD'd and turned into a redirect last year. Raul654 (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. This page has plenty of sources to demonstrate notability and is not the same thing as what was previously AfD'd (not to mention that since that time the conference has happened again and received much more coverage). Pasted from what I wrote on Raul's talk page: The AfD that you cited (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) was about the NIPCC, which came out of the ICCC but is not the same thing. It was also a year ago and ended with no consensus and a "recommendation" to redirect. If you look at most of the non-keep arguments, they either claim that there is no notability or that there's no evidence that it's notable outside of the conference. This year's conference has been covered in many news outlets, as you can see here and in the large number of sources in the article, certainly enough to meet WP:N IMO. Current sources include The New York Times (twice), The Washington Post, The Canada Free Press, The Boston Globe, Radio Free Europe, Reason Magazine, The New Zealand Herald, The Independent, and about a dozen others. The other concern doesn't apply to this article because the conference clearly existed, was attended by numerous notable people in both science and politics, and was well-covered by sources. Oren0 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the message at the top of last year's AFD makes clear, there was no consensus to delete the article. There was, IMO, a pretty clear consensus to redirect it, although it was unclear what to redirect it to (climate change denial, Fred Singer, SEPP, and the Heartland Institute were all suggested). As for the reasons, I'm seeing far more than a lack of notability outside the conference, such as:

• "may be to prone to POV problems" - Realkyhick
• "There is no evidence that the NIPCC even exists" - Kim D. Petersen
• "It does stink of a publicity stunt, and the name seems to be chosen to deliberately confuse " - Ioliver
• "a barely notable cheap trick to confuse people about who is speaking" - Dhartung

So clearly the reasons go beyond the lack of any media attention. As for this year's conference, simply re-running the same conference with the same names does not make it any more notable than it was last year. Raul654 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, running the same conference again and having many media outlets report on that does make it more notable. By the way, the previous tally was 5.5 keeps, 6.5 merges (one !vote was keep or merge), 1 delete, and 1 "move to form a subsection of 2008 International Conference on Climate Change". Obviously AfDs are not a vote, but that's far from a resounding consensus. I would also question whether some of the arguments you list are applicable to this article. The "does it exist" argument doesn't apply here, and the confusing name thing doesn't seem to me a valid reason to delete anything (that's what hatnotes are for). I also don't see why this article would be inherently prone to any more POV problems than, for example, the Kyoto Protocol article. Oren0 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the name is merely confusing - it's specifically designed to confuse people. This goes towards the larger issue that this conference is simply a publicity stunt by the Heartland institute and its cadre of deniers. Wikipedia is not news. Maybe Wikinews would like an article on the conference, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Raul654 (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —94.196.126.123 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of independent, reliable sources, which is a key defining element of WP:GNG notability. If someone has concerns, as in the other AfD, about the actuality of the conference, establish this in the article, but for now, it seems to have garnered enough press publicity to be considered notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, perhaps if you scrolled down abit on WP:GNG and you'd notice WP:N#OBJ: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"... As far as i can see, all the coverage is exactly such a "short burst". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short burst? The Seattle Times article is from March 2, 2008; The Boston Globe article is from December 7, 2008. To mention just two. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs •count)} 19:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand Kim's reply here. The sources here span at least 13 months. Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Op-Ed's as evidence for notability? Hmmm. Novel. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the fact that this is even up for deletion is mind boggling. It would be nice to have more info on the conference though. Kagetto (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as in not delete). Passes WP:V with flying colors. -Atmoz (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. Much as I wish this bunch of bozos would go away and admit their intellectual bankruptcy, they won't for a bit; and the article itself only weakly exaggerates their utter lack of credibility William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable per WP:NOT#NEWS. The conferences get short bursts of mention around the time when they are held, which is the inevitable result of press-releases. And in the time between them, only occasional mentions in Op-Ed's. Its basic astroturfing.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.