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 Redirect to Solar variation#Solar variation theory which attributes ideas to reputable scientists and is properly sourced, and presents historical research and quantitative data. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-28 05:55Z

Solar system warming[edit]

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

A near-textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated almost precisely from Climate of Mars. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis, original research, and POV fork. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nom: Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.

• DO NOT DELETE - This article concerns an area of active interest for many readers and therefore deserves a place in Wikipedia. The group trying to delete this article have hijacked all the Global Warming related articles and have been deleting or censoring any article which is against their POV. ~ Rameses 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Raymond. Raul654 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom :: ZJH ^{(T C E)} 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above. Note that User:Rameses has a history of supporting such material and needs to read such things as WP:NOR. Michaelbusch 04:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:Rameses claims a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors against his views (see User_talk:Rameses). This is not an ad hominem argument. I simply think this should be known to all who vote here. Michaelbusch 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: User:Michaelbusch says this on his talk page:
    • from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one
    • Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. :::Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not an ad hominem argument. I simply think this should be known to all who vote here. ~ Rameses 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Though solar system warming (and cooling) may be a real thing, this article was created for the sole purpose of publishing OR to continue the global warming debate. --I already forgot 05:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So your point is that this encyclopedia should not publish real material about the debate surrounding global warming mainstream theories? --Childhood's End 16:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What material on mainstream theories? Theories created on message boards or by wikipedians? If this was a real scientific theory I would have no problem adding the article myself. --I already forgot 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have sources. As per always, "It demeans the purpose of a encyclopedia, which is not to advance a particular theory, but to present the browser with the current state of knowledge. Wikipedia is not here to say what is the truth, it is not here to evangelize your idea, it is here to provide a summary of what is being said—even if you don't like it." ~ UBeR 05:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: sources in article are either non-reliable or do not support the conclusions the article draws. This is grounds for exclusion. See also the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience and 'Objection 0' on my user page. Michaelbusch 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE This theory has virtually no supporting evidence. The title itself is as informative as the entire article. There shouldn't be an article for every little idea someone comes up with. Someguy1221 05:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsense forthwith. csloat 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP this is a very hot topic and there are many people who want to find out what the thinking and discussion on this topic is. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information on new theories not determine whether they are correct or not. Leave that to the scientific community - otherwise aren't you guilty of OR? -- Brittainia 07:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we are supposed to let anybody suggest nonsense, but require peer-reviewed science to reject it? That's a convenient double standard...--Stephan Schulz 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially considering that the scientific community rejects this type of thing as bollocks on sight. Michaelbusch 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what parts of the scientific community? I've come across this sort of theory many times, including in my planetary physics classes, due to increased sun cycle activity. Ben W Bell talk 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is just Martian global warming rehashed, only with a broader claim and hence even less sources. Even the National Post wrangling of Abdusamatov does not support this claim, and the reliable sources on that page deal either with solar activity or with local climate change on Mars only.--Stephan Schulz 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - right... MER-C 07:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and redirect to Solar variation, I'd like to say speedy redirect, but that just sounds silly. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirection is not appropriate: the solar variation article is valid, while this is not. Michaelbusch 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why I didn't say "merge", no (I've changed my vote to delete and redirect to be clearer about my feelings)? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, there is no reason to redirect, as the entire article falls under WP:NOR - redirection would mean that we should have redirect pages for just about any subject that anyone could think of, real or not. --Kim D. Petersen 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOR. Mostlyharmless 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the sources reliably support the contentions, the relevant information could be merged into the articles at Pluto, Jupiter, and Triton. It's apparently already there at Mars. But there's not even an assertion of a source that "Solar system warming" is the name of the theory that climate change is happening on other planetary bodies in the solar system, and thus (I agree) no reason to redirect. —Carolfrog 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can source it better, the sources do not necessarily link to the theory, just piecemeal parts of it that could combine to a theory. Find an article on it (I'll check my planetary physics and solar texts) and I'll change my mind but the references, while reliable, don't support the article. Ben W Bell talk 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete do not redirect, do not merge: there is nothing here worth keeping. The section on "Mars" is simply a copy of material from climate of mars. The only other section is the intro, which is supported only by one reference, the thoroughly unreliable "prisonplanet" William M. Connolley 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep My first gut reaction was to keep (but mainly just to offset a few above who are saying delete on political grounds) However, doing that is not good for Wikipedia, so I did a search for "solar system warming" and I was surprised at the number of references. A few described "solar system warming" as a term for the idea that global warming is caused by an increase in output energy from the sun. Secondarily the article has only been edited for two days -it clearly has been jumped on by some people with a very political stick. As far as I can see, it satisfies the main test of being a real term, the second test of being notable I'm not sure about, the argument that "it's not true" - if that were a valid argument then bang would go reincarnation, christianity, etc. It will do no harm to Wikipedia to leave it a few months to allow the editors to develop the article at which point we will know better whether it is worth keeping. Mike 09:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Mike - if you do a google search for "solar system warming" - you do not find anything but blogs and occational political pages (at least on the 12 result pages on google) - so i really can't see that argument as valid. The article purports to be a scientific one - not a political talking point. --Kim D. Petersen 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Kim, not true. With a little effort you can find scientific works on the subject including the book I cite below. At this point, I do not know the level of scientific consensus on the subject but I do know that others have discussed the question. There is no reason why all of the evidence cannot be presented in this article, which is obviously interesting to many Wikipedia readers.RonCram 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The article does need work, but it is far too early to delete. Many Wikipedia readers are interested in the subject of observed warming on other planets. The fact other planets are warming is not debated by anyone. The meaning of the warming can be debated, but Wikipedia readers cannot read about the debate if the article is deleted. RonCram 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The fact other planets are warming is not debated by anyone" - not by anyone serious, I agree. There is no published evidence for a coordinated warming of the planets (of course they all warm for about half of their orbital period and then cool for the other half, as their distance to the sun changes). --Stephan Schulz 10:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: The book "Solar Activity and Earth's Climate" by Rasmus E. Benestad discusses solar activity and climate change on Earth and also looks at other planets in the solar system. The author writes: "We will glean some information from two other earth-like planets, Venus and Mars, as well as the Moon, and compare these to our own Earth. Both the planets have an atmosphere which exhibit similar features as well as different attributes to the Earth's atmosphere. If variations in the Sun produce changes in the Earth's climate, one may expect to see similar fluctuations in the brightness temperature on Venus and perhaps Mars." (page 4) [1] This is just one example of evidence showing that the Sun's role in warming on other planets is a subject of scientific interest. The effort to delete this page is purely an effort to censor information rather than deliver information to Wikipedia readers. Stephan, your theory is interesting and may even be factual. I have not seen any citation to back it up and if the article is deleted, you will not have a place to provide me with a citation. It is important the article be kept.RonCram 11:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ron, that book is a useful resource, and, from what I can tell, at a glance, a WP:RS. But it does not talk about Solar system warming, but only some effects of solar variations on Moon, Mars, and Venus. If you read a sentence beyond your quote, you will see that the author acknowledges the lack of data about temperatures on other planets. I don't know what you call "my theory", the fact that planets warm and cool as they follow their elliptical orbit is not a "theory" (in either the scientific or the common sense), but indeed a fact. And btw, the book seems to fully accept and support the IPCC positions...--Stephan Schulz 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stephan, I did not mean to imply the book supported the article. I quoted it because it shows that this is a scientific question that has been raised and is worthy of discussion. Since the book is now five years old, the lacking time series for temperature may exist. At the very least, the temperature record is five years longer than it was then. Your "theory" has to do with planetary seasons. The fact seasons exist is a fact and not a theory. However, applying the fact to the observed warming is a theory. While the theory may be correct regarding some of the more distant planets and moons (which have very long orbits), it seems to be wholly unsatisfactory for Mars which orbits the Sun about every 2 years and has been undergoing warming for a decade or two. RonCram 13:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Scientific theories are notable Al-Bargit 11:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup I've read in numerous books and seen in documentaries that planet climate change could be caused by stars' temperature fluctuations or the path the solar system takes through the galaxy. I've provided here a few links I found to what sound like reliable sources: [2][3] [4]. The article needs work as it talks little about these theories and concentrates on observed effects on Mars, whereas I think it should concentrate on the theories themselves. But admittedly, it's still a stub. On another note, why should we keep this article but delete this one, as both are proposed theories? Icemuon 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content within this article is indisputable fact, the damn thing is coming towards us. This is not a valid comparison. 131.215.159.161 12:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not an indisputable fact, as was discussed in the AfD. This particular article was pointed to, for instance -- it may happen. Icemuon 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Telegraph is not a reliable source. The MPG press release deals with solar variance and the climate on Earth, not other planets. And Shaviv suggests an interaction of cosmic rays and, again Earth's atmosphere and cloud system as a source of climate changes. His theory just does not apply to the "solar system".--Stephan Schulz 12:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all the above. Vsmith 12:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --BozMo talk 12:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Mishlai 12:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valid subject. This does have things writen about it. The fact that it is currently a bad article, and needs more sources doesn't mean it should be deleted. I only created it the other day as a stub, and it has already grown to this size. Obviously it is going to need a lot of clean-up, refference additions, etc... however, I do not think that it should be deleted. Also, conserning the Global Warming articles, I testify to the above, it does seem they have been hijacked by a few administrators, specificly William M. Connolley. I happened upon this when looking up Global cooling, and noticed that (at least at the time) it was writen like an attack that made the topic almost not readable, and mostly consisted of an attack on it with Global warming... and yet it was deffended by him and others. I do not know if it is the same way still. However, I feel that a more neutral-to-the-subject administrator should look into it. I'm not advocating anyone's position... just pointing out that the problem does seem to be real. Anyway, I suggest this article be cleaned up. If you want to take all the unproven things to the talk page, or just remove them, I would have no problem with that. I would have no problem if this was reduced to very little for now. However, the researchable and salvageable information should maybe be taken to the talk page until something can be done with this. Just some ideas. Main point: Valid topic that needs research, resources, and rewriting; not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadanYagci (talk • contribs) 13:43, 27 February 2007 Sorry, forgot to sign. SadanYagci 15:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is a valid subject, and an interesting one to many WP readers. This article will be improved over time and the deletion request has been made not even one day after the article was created by a known global warming believer, User:Raymond arritt. The POV fork accusation cannot hold since Mr. Arritt, along with some regular acquaintances who have voted for deletion on this page, have kept this subject out of any global warming related article. This alone should raise a big warning signal regarding this deletion attempt. --Childhood's End 15:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mr. Arritt, myself, and the other editors advocating deletion have done so for one reason only: to maintain some level of scientific credibility on Wikipedia (that was why I noted Rameses claims above). Wikipedia is not a forum for pseudoscience. I know the levels of debate surrounding the global-warming articles, but this is not related to them. It is merely nonsense. Michaelbusch 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nice POV essay, although a bit short. I appreciate that you admitted your desire to "cleanse" Wikipedia of the stuff you disagree with. On the other hand, if Wikipedia is not a forum for pseudoscience, it is neither a forum for one-sided POVs. --Childhood's End 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How is it nonsense? I can understand the page itself being a bit of a problem as it is, being only a day old; however, what makes the subject itself nonsense? It is certainly spoken of. It is certainly writen about. Not as much as Global Warming, and maybe not as much as Global cooling but it is still a theory that is out there that an encyclopedia should cover. SadanYagci 17:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Theories are like opinions and azzholes, everyone has one. Now the decision is which theory is notable enough to be encyclopedic content and which one is for the sole purpose of political debate on "message boards"? Do we include every message board theory created to discredit global warming or just the ones that are being actively debated in the scientific community? If it is an active scientific debate or theory, lets see the refs stating its an actual theory? --I already forgot 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meta-Comment: My statements above are not POV pushing. They are a statement of the ArbCom decision on pseudoscience, which says that Wikipedia must be consistent with present scientific consensus. This particular article is nonsense for the reasons given for deletion by other editors here. Note also: everyone has been mis-using 'theory'. This implies consistency with existing data, which this article does not have (no, we will not have a forty-post argument about that, because that is not the purpose of this discussion). So 'theory' doesn't work. I need a word for such things, but 'nonsense' works well. Michaelbusch 17:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Very misleading article. Although referenced, the credible references like NASA, astronomy.com and the journal Nature, never talk about a "theory of solar system warming". Absolutely unacceptable. As the nom points out, this is textbook WP:SYNT. A Train ^{take the} 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. dcandeto 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reluctant keep. It's not that the article is good, and it's not that the subject is well established, but nevertherless it is a notable subject, it was in the papers and so forth. Due to that, I think we should keep it and simply add the 10-20 references that would completely demolish it. It seems to me that most of the above arguments are based on a disagreement with the POV the article is currently largely slanted towards, but that just says that the article need more POV/information the other way to show how dumb it is. It's worse to not have an article on this topic than to have one, if it's well researched and referenced.WolfKeeper 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My main objection is that they do not present a reliable source presenting the theory. I see here original research in the form of synthesis of weak sources while ignoring better evidence which refutes it. See Solar variation and Solar constant which are better articles addressing the output of the sun. Astronomical observation of the sun is a far more legitimate index of solar output than ice on the Martian pole melting. The article appears to be a POV argument lacking adequate sources based on an indirect index. It is like claiming low water pressure in the house based on a teenager taking too long in the shower, while ignoring a water pressure meter. Inkpaduta 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or Major rewrite Without either endorsing or questioning the accuracy of the topic, it still may be notable. However, as written this article is original research and soapboxing per several other commenters. I encourage editors who wish to keep this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards, as I reserve the right to change my mind on this matter. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is all either original research or misrepresented sources.--Jespley 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep.Notable subject; especially as it pertains to the macro issue that surrounds our very well known subject of "globalwarming." I suspect that much like the case for the original ideas pertaining to global warming, we may find that even if we delete this article, someone will be forced to write it again, someday. Lee Nysted 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once we have published secondary sources, they can do so. Now, there are none. The cited sources do not support the article, and no sources on this subject can be found. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research, a textbook case (novel synthesis from publsihed sources), plus POV fork. Hard to find anything on this title on the web other than blogs, abovetopsecret.com and that kind of thing. A big fat zero on google scholar, ditto Google News, ditto Factiva. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. OR, POV fork, etc. Dragomiloff 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no google books results and news search gives only a single result... Addhoc 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. - ElbridgeGerry t c block
• Delete per WP:NOR (and presumably WP:SOAP). When, or if, this becomes notable, then we can have an article, but not before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - text book original research. Savidan 01:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of reliable sources. With scientific theories, first you get it published in a refereed journal, then Wikipedia can do an article about it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Articles on scientific theories should always have reliable, authoritative sources. --Polaron | Talk 01:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment looking at the recent history of this page, the supporters seem to be engaging in even more blatant OR, turning the page merely a list of heavenly bodies who's temperatures are increasing, without any significant source claiming varying solar output as a cause. Someguy1221 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Meta-Comment: I have fixed this, going to the cited sources, and finding that only in the case of Mars had any of the cited sources endorsed changes in the solar constant. All others were mis-representation and have been removed. Michaelbusch 05:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Uses a variety of unrelated sources to push an unknown, original theory. --Philosophus ^T 05:10, 28 February 2007 (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.