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. It's a biography of a living person. We err on the side of deletion in cases like this; I don't consider this negotiable. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Theon[edit]

John Theon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable scientist and former NASA official.

I performed a thorough literature search and found that he has contributed to only 10 referred journal articles, with 4 as first author. I added these under the bibliography section in the article. His contributions did not significantly impact his scientific discipline, as most of them received less than 10 citations. He has contributed to a few books and NASA reports. Nor has he received academic honors, or been elected to any prestigious academic society. [|Talk page] discussion showed no one arguing that he was notable, or providing reliable sources that established his notability. Thus he fails WP:ACADEMIC.

It was mentioned that perhaps his tenure at NASA as "head of an important research project" should count for something. The organizational structure] of the NASA Earth Science Division shows that the head of the radiation and climate branch is quite low, and nobody else, save James Hansen, has a WP article. The person currently holding the post, Robert Cahalan, has had a much more distinguished career as a scientist. (See View all my Publications link on biography.)

His only claim to notability is that he has recently said he "disagree[s] that global warming is man made." The article also fails the more general biography basic criteria as there is no secondary sources independent of the subject. His claim to notability is based solely on emails sent to, and published by, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Page. Atmoz (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - his notability is quite clear. He has been quoted, featured, or mentioned in the sources below. I believe that these sources speak for themselves and that he objectively meets WP:N. Many of these refs were in the article but they were removed because they "obfuscated" the original source. I can list several more sources if people think these aren't enough. How the Senate committee minority, much less any of the sources below, can be considered not "independent of the subject" is beyond me. Many news organizations reporting on something confer notability to it. Oren0 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The Register: [1]

  NewsMax: [2]

  Fox News: [3]

  The Spectator: [4]

  Institute for Southern Studies: [5]

  The London Telegraph: [6]

  Right Side News: [7]

  Washington Times, see the ref in the article and this link. The article doesn't appear to be available for free.

  Wilson County News: [8]

  Yorkshire Post: [9]

  The Guardian: [10] (Note that this column actually disagrees with Theon, but it still confers notability to him)

  The Phoenix: [11]

  National Ledger: [12] (note that these last two are the same column published in two places).

  It's also worth noting that James Hansen has responded to Theon, and an email exchange between the two and the writers of various blogs has occurred: [13]. This argues against the BLP1E argument as a dialogue is apparently ongoing on this issue.

Please read WP:BLP1E. As far as I can see, none of these articles does more but repeat the quotes from the Senate committee minority blog. Indeed, many mention the subject only in passing, in a single sentence. And among your list are several editorials and even a letter to the editor, i.e. not exactly sterling material. The only source about Theon himself is the short bio in his email to Morano, a WP:SPS republished in a politically partisan blog that is not exactly known for "fact-checking and accuracy". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E can't apply here, because it says to "cover the event, not the person". Due to the restriction on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming to only include individuals with articles, and due to WP:WEIGHT at Global warming controversy, it is impossible for us to cover the event on WP without this individual having an article. Oren0 (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. So if the event is not notable enough to go into Global warming controversy, and all coverage about Theon is in fact about the event, that's even stronger evidence that Theon is not notable - and that the event is, indeed, a non-event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)ve to be dropped from Gore’s presentations.[reply]

Hansen’s former NASA supervisor -- atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, who recently announced that he is skeptical of global warming alarmism -- recently wrote to Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staffer Marc Morano that, “Hansen…violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it) … [and] thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Commenting on another key deficiency in the manmade catastrophic global warming hypothesis, Theon also observed that “[climate] models do not realisti

Quite the contrary. His notability largely stems from his recent quotes regarding his opinion on global warming (while I'm not sure that those are the only notable thing he's done, without them he wouldn't have an article). I am of the belief that his quotes are notable based on the sources I've linked above. BLP1E would suggest that we cover "the event, not the person," however there is no article in which we could cover the event due to the "rules" placed upon the scientist list. Therefore, the only way Wikipedia can cover this notable subject is for the individual to have an article. Additionally, I disagree with your assertion that "the only source about Theon himself is the short bio in his email to Morano," as the Register article is entirely about him and presents his background. Oren0 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Register is, of course, a lousy source. And in this case, it is obvious that the only source of their article is again Morano's blog. If the event is notable (and your list of editorials, blogs, letters to the editor, and fairly fringe news sites does not really support that), the correct way to cover the event is to have an article on it. See e.g. Star Wars Kid. Now I agree that "John Theon criticizes Hansen and Global Warming" would be an absurd article. What immediately comes to mind is the question "Who is Theon and why would anyone care?". But that tells us that indeed this event is irrelevant and non-notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is only a week old and should be given time to be developed. Q Science (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notable for only one thing is not notable, if all it is is offering an opinion. The article is not likely to be developed in any real sense, unless newspapers decide to do some actual reporting, which is not in our hands: more letters to local newspapers are not really going to help. The Guardian article cited above, incidentally, only mentions Theon in passing as one of a number of points in which the Telegraph (or The London Telegraph, if you must) misrepresents the facts. Those keen to attack Hansen et al. would do better to simply add Theon to the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (but I see he's already there). N p holmes (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria for being on that list is notability, by default established via the existence of a Wikipedia article. If the article is deleted, so probably will be the entry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been deleted again. (not by me) Q Science (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is being used as a political football, and I dislike that in BLPs. I've looked in Lexisnexis for more sources, and this is it. His work for NASA fails WP:ACADEMIC, and his opinion on global warming is barely an "event" for the purposes of WP:BLP1E. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog aggregator. Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Trying to use "one thing" on this is an absurdity: "headed NASA's atmospheric dynamics and radiation branch from 1982–1994" is notable as an administrator, and seems to be well demonstrated. What someone in that position says about global warming is furthermore notable, and appropriate for inclusion here. Whether he is right or wrong is another matter. DGG (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what I think the delete arguments amount to, is that other people are more notable. The interest here is that it is always noteworthy that a trained scientist with relevant degrees, who has held a responsible position in a relevant agency, disputes the standard global warming hypothesis. Obviously the right wing climate people will make a big deal of that, for so few knowledgeable people actually do support their position. To me, strongly opposed to them, it would seem there should consequently be full information about the people on the other side. If I wanted most effective show his limitations I would list all his papers and the citation count. I would not attempt to suppress the article here about him. Anything like a removal of a possibly borderline article on someone involved in political controversy, is a tactic, which our enemies can make use of to try to show a bias at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is always noteworthy that a trained scientist with relevant degrees, who has held a responsible position in a relevant agency, disputes the standard global warming hypothesis. I disagree with excusing a non-notable BLP simply as a way of showing controversy. These are real people, and having a poorly-supervised article on them in one of the internet's top 10 sites could do them real damage. (And it's nothing to do with Theon's views -- I'd say the same thing about Bob Cahalan, who presently holds the position corresponding to Theon's and whose views on GW are within the mainstream.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was careful to say "noteworthy" not "notable". It's noteworthy in the sense of explaining why people are paying attention to his views. DGG (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly-supervised? On what basis do you make that call? This article is watchlisted by at least four administrators and has been edited by several experienced users. Oren0 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a general point. I can't see the contents of other people's watchlists. And I strongly suspect that you cannot, either. Actually I'd love to see a software feature such that everyone who votes "keep" on a BLP automatically has the article added to their watchlist and is unable to remove it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nitpick. Let me rephrase: several administrators and experienced editors are likely watching this page based on the editing that has occurred on it so far. Oren0 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course they will continue to watch it indefinitely... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless stronger grounds for notability can be found. He might well (in fact, probably does) deserve a mention in articles on global warming controversies, but he does not seem to me to deserve an article of his own, per WP:ACADEMIC.Anaxial (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, essentially per Cool Hand Luke above. There is an argument in some quarters that any retired government manager who gets a passing mention in the popular press should have an article. I don't buy it. To repeat my usual refrain, these thousands of poorly-watched BLPs are legal and ethical time bombs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the "legal and ethical timebomb" argument defused at all by the fact that Theon has explicitly and intentionally injected himself into the public debate on global warming? In the letter, he explicitly asks to be publicly recognized as a skeptic. This is not a case where someone accidentally became famous and privacy concerns are high. When one asks to be considered in a public debate, I believe there is an expectation of coverage (which has occurred, per the links above).

  I don't think the concerns I expressed are defused by the fact that the person has made a public statement. Your argument seems to boil down to "if someone makes a public statement then they deserve whatever happens to them." Even when someone has made a public statement I think we still have an obligation not to create an attractive nuisance by keeping an article on them that is apt to be poorly supervised. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is very well said. BLPs should be firmly notable because each has the potential to do harm. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable.[reply]

• delete per Nom, Boris and Luke. Notable only for a brief controversy best left to low-grade blogs [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject clearly meets the GNG with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. RMHED. 20:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to some? I've not seen any coverage of the person (as opposed to the single event of him being cited on Inhofe's blog). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG. Had a notable job, got very visibly involved in a notable controversy. Not one event. Hobit (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've looked over the sources offered, and with the exception of the 1992 Washington Times article that apparently no-one has seen, they all refer to one single event. There is no evidence whatsoever of any independent reporting or research. That leaves us essentially no reliable sources about the man - all we can say is that his name and a short self-written bio have been printed in a partisan political blog. That's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The quality of the sources also is, in general, lousy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. His sole claim to fame is that some people have done their best at circulating an email he wrote to create a controversy that's not really there. The sources provided are not the best, and, on top of that, most of these dont really cover him. Brusegadi (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am convinced that this controversy is notable enough. Academic Challenger (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Oren0, DGG. Numerous sources, notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources (half of which are op-eds) each just recount the email he wrote to a politician. There's no non-trivial coverage at all—there is no substantial source for ensuring that we assign appropriate WEIGHT in this BLP. Cool Hand Luke 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF. Citation impact seems to be low. As for the point made by DGG, WP:PROF criterion #6 refers to highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society, which is not the case here. Otherwise any other unit head at NASA or a comparably prestigious organization would qualify automatically. Regarding possible notability under WP:BIO, this looks like a classic WP:1E; among other things, the subject does not seem to have enough of a research record to be considered an authority in the field.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

every unit head in NASA should indeed have an article. WP:1E refers to events not that someone is recorded as taking a particular position. If it's going to be used for things like this, let's get rid of it, or at least reword it. DGG (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he can be called a "unit head." Seriously, look at this! It doesn't even have a fancy colored box for his position, "Climate and Radiation Branch." According to their top-level organization chart, you are advocating biographies for about 250 current employees of NASA regardless of their coverage in secondary sources—easily thousands of living people total counting the former "heads" like this one. Cool Hand Luke 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's 250 "heads" for the Goddard Center, and there are 9 Other Centers and a handful of facilities, each with their own organization charts (See, e.g. the Ames Center and Kennedy Space Center, the JPL structure seems even larger than GSFC, but I can't find a single chart for it). I'm not sure how many biographies you're advocating, but it's a lot. Cool Hand Luke 04:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) every unit head in NASA should indeed have an article That position is contrary to our current BLP policies. The closest parallel is in WP:PROF, at the discussion of "director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center." Here that would have been director of GSFC, or at a stretch, the earth science division. Theon was a manager several levels below that. More broadly, Theon fails all of the criteria in WP:PROF. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Steve Schultz, CHL, Anaxial and nom. Incidentally, for those saying it's too soon, 1 week seems more then enough time for an article to develop particularly when major contributors have been busy trying to find a source for a minor issue you would expect they would have turned up these other RS about him if they existed Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems quite notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete well it seems all to have been said here. Theon doesn't seem to be notable as a scientist, nor as an administrative figure. The only notable item shown so far, is the use of his emails by the EPW minority blog, which apparently hasn't reached beyond the blogosphere and the opinion columns. And thats (to say the least) an extremely thin basis for an article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are some other sources: gnews search. In addition to his views on the climate, dating to 20 years ago, not just recently, one can learn he was a Mad as Hell New Anti-Tax Crusader[15], along with his objections to discourtesy to performing artists[16]. Clearly seems notable enough for inclusion on the list mentioned above, notwithstanding current criteria.John Z (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "Mad as hell" article is interesting because he's described this way:

• "If you project a few years ahead, I'll be handing over my whole paycheck to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors," said John Theon, a NASA scientist from McLean who said his taxes have increased by $ 1,900 in two years. "Something has to be done, because they just think we're a bottomless pit, or a sheep to be shorn."

That's the extent of coverage in the article. He is never even mentioned a second time. Note that it does not describe him as a NASA "unit head." I've seen these sources, they're even more trivial than what's in the article (blogs and editorials).

The other source is a letter to the editor he wrote as a grad student. Are you serious?Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it clear I wasn't being too serious with those two; his notability comes from his work and positions, could be usable to write a less boring article if kept, though. Note "Comment" rather than "Keep." But if there are claims of exhaustiveness, then I think it is worthwhile pointing out additional sources to everyone.John Z (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since as I can only see snippets of these articles, it's hard to say the extent of the coverage in them. But in terms of his title, the snippets in John Z's link refer to him as the "chairman" of the Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel (in a Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications paper), the "head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's weather research office" (in the Philadelphia Enquirer and the Wichita Eagle), and refer to his "management" (in a NASA wind-shear report). The fact that he held some sort of supervisory position is made quite clear by these sources (in addition to the others) and I'm not sure why you think that fact is questionable. Oren0 (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question he's a manager. See above. He's one of thousands though—not a "head." in any meaningful sense. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Basically echoing most of the "keep" arguments listed above. --GoRight (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Arguments that there are many other people of his level are irrelevant--I would be surprised if an agency like NASA did not have hundreds of notable people. agreed that he's not top administration. But the analogy with WP:PROF is wrong--though a chairman only might be automatically notable, so will many other people in any first rate department, and NASA is corresponds much more to a large first rate technological university than a mere department. I would expect hundreds of notable faculty at MIT also. DGG (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on DGG, TG's latest comment and earlier sources provided, such as they are. There aren't many such quasi-"large first rate technological university" organizations, and hundreds of notable people, including those holding his positions, the equivalent of something like the "distinguished prof" criterion, doesn't seem out of order. And finally, I think David's earlier point about erring on the side of keeping "mainstream" critics of the mainstream is valid, that such articles are a real, positive addition to the encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm frankly disgusted that politics trumps WP:BLP. People on both sides of this know that I'm no GW partisan; I would want this sort of biography on either side deleted. This simply fails WP:N, especially for a BLP. Cool Hand Luke 15:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A mid-level NASA administrator does not have the same level of notability as a distinguished professor. He has about the same level of notability as a mid-level administrator at a major research university. But what I'm really concerned about is the quality and quantity of the sources. What can you write about this person that does not originally come from the Inhofe blog? That he dislikes paying taxes? That he dislikes (some) clapping in concerts? And even that is from a primary source that seems to be linked to this person only by name... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What can be said about him is based on an email he wrote. This email is verifiable because it has been reported by muliple sources. The distinction between "Theon said" and "Inhofe's blog reports Theon said", the former being how it is reported in most of these sources, is an important one. We allow an individual's quotes to be in an article if they're verifiable, which this quote is. Oren0 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:SPS#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used [several qualifiers] so long as: [...] 6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;" --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • P is for Publish. I was unaware that Theon is the publisher of Fox News, NewsMax, The Telegraph, etc. Oren0 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...only that they did not publish the email, they only reported on it (or, more often, on it appearing on Inhofe's blog). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any quote anyone makes is going to start out of their lips or hands. There's no way around that. But when reliable sources quote it, it becomes attributable and therefore appropriate for inclusion on WP. The fact that it originally was written in an unverifiable email is irrelevant as being reported on by multiple sources contributes both to its verifiability and its notability. For example, private conversations of the President are not verifiable. But once those conversations are taped and reported in reliable sources, that makes them suitable for inclusion in WP. Oren0 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmm. We seem to very much disagree about why SPSes are problematic. Your argument seems to be that we can now check and recheck the email, and be reasonably sure that it's from Theon. But that is true of a blog post or a web site, too. The problem is that Theon has has no reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and that he writes without editorial control. Note that we do not use the Watergate tapes as secondary sources (we do not necessarily believe everything said in them), but as primary sources for Nixon's actions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd have to say that Oren0's interpretation seems much more standard. Theon wrote an email - clearly an SPS. It was reported in a .gov blog - much less of an SPS, and more reliable. The blog was quoted in mainstream news outlet editorial material - not in any way an SPS, and IMHO reliable enough. Theon's fact checking etc is completely irrelevant at this stage, and of course him as an SPS for his own words is perfectly OK in an article on him, as long as stuff solely from him does not dominate the article. The Watergate parallel to the last stage is mainstream editorial comment about the tapes, clearly a secondary source.John Z (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • For what it's worth, I think that this source is clearly valid as a source in a BLP. However, it doesn't establish notability, and that's what this page is about. There is no non-trivial source about him. He dislikes taxes, he worked at NASA, and he disagrees with global warming. What's missing is a secondary profile on him, not some email he wrote. Without this secondary source, it's hard to write any biography that obeys WEIGHT—especially when we're twiddling with these passing mentions. I implore Oren0 to reconsider. I don't take sides in these debates—indeed, we're usually on the same "side" because I'm on the side of BLP, and editors repeatedly try to insert blog sources on people like Mr. Theon. I think both he and Wikipedia would be better off without maintaining his article as a political football. Cool Hand Luke 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have no problem with using the email as a source. If you follow the discussion thread, you will see that I have trouble with the article being based primarily on it, as per our WP:SPS policy. The email does not become more reliable by other sources repeating it. And John, a ".gov blog", especially an extremely partisan one like Inhofe's minority blog, is not a good source at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The "based primarily on it" does not enter into it, once there are outside sources, because the email does become more reliable, definitely not self-published, and usable by other sources repeating it. They are providing the fact- checking etc. That's what more reliable sources do - add reliability. Anything whatsoever could be criticized that way: everything is said by - originally published by some "self" - and then repeated elsewhere.John Z (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Another defender of the article and use of the sources has made it quite clear that they are only there as a kind of source laundering. "You're asking the wrong questions. Do I believe that these sources derive only from the Morano blog and did no independent fact-checking? You bet." (Full context here.) No-one reading them could think otherwise. There should be no assumption that an opinion piece is reliable, even if it appears in a newspaper. N p holmes (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • An opinion piece is considered reliable for a BLP if its author is under the editorial control of the newspaper. Do you have any reason to doubt this is so? Oren0 (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, that is not so. An editorial or opinion piece is explicitly only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, according to WP:RS and long-standing usage. It's the very purpose of an opinion piece to transport the opinion of the writer, not to report on facts. It's also a red herring. In the diff referred to by Holmes you state that you do not believe that any of the reports did do anything but blindly reiterate the Morano blog. So, according to your opinion, none of them can be more reliable than the Morano blog. Do you think that blog is an acceptable BLP source, or do you wikilawyer despite your own better knowledge? To me, it looks as if you are arguing form more than substance at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                            • What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable. The fact that a dozen respectable publications seem to believe that the quote is accurate, regardless of the work they've done to come to that conclusion (it's probably because they give more credence to the Morano blog than we do), is good enough to satisfy WP:V. In my opinion, the fact that a dozen respectable publications decided to report on this man makes him meet WP:N. I'm really not sure it makes sense to continue arguing here as we're not likely to convince each other and I believe all there is to say has been said. Oren0 (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Oren0: "What I also say in that diff is that what due diligence I believe reporters to have done is irrelevant to whether a source can be considered reliable." - I'm a bit baffled, but willing to let that stand for itself (as long as its properly attributed). Would you mind to address the problem that the sources (I don't think we will agree on which are respectable ;-) only report on a single event, and contain next to no biographical information? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "The email does not become more reliable by other sources repeating it." - I think John as accurately commented on this from the reliability aspect of having secondary sources reference it. But more importantly from the perspective of this AfD, having multiple secondary sources take note of it and publish about it independently DOES increase it's notability. That, in part at least, is exactly what notability is about. --GoRight (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Not to burst anybody's bubble, but have you actually looked at the list of sources given by Oren above? I just went over it again. While several repeat parts of Theon's statement on global warming, none seems to repeat his bio, or even significant parts of it. What we get is "a former NASA chief" (sic), "Hansen's collegue", "a retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs", but that's about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That's what I've been saying all along. This sourcing issue is less relevant to AFD because there are no non-trivial secondary sources about this individual. There's no profile, no background of his career, no interview, or anything. Just a small scattering of bare mentions over a long period of time. Articles should not be based on such passing references, especially not BLP. Cool Hand Luke 23:47, 11 February 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.