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. No one was able to refute well enough Guettarda's argument about Ball not being notable as a professor. The vast majority of the keep arguments were extremely weak, mentioning sources that provide little information that could be used to write a sufficient biography. The fact that he is a professor who has won several teaching awards is not sufficient to make someone notable. Mentions of him in US Senate Committee reports are not by any means an indicator of notability. Detailed posts about him in the blogosphere, while they indicate that he is a person of an interest, cannot be used as a marker of notability. Neither can the fact that Ball has presented denialist lectures in the past; we simply don't count that as a measure of notability.

Guettarda again points outs a valuable point: "We can't use "publicity" to write an article. A series of quotes without actual information about a person is pretty much useless from the perspective of trying to write an encyclopaedic biography." We need sources. As WP:SIGCOV puts it, "sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine). Most of the news references brought up address Ball for a few sentences at most; I fail to see how that qualifies as "more than a trivial mention".

The only major news article that I saw brought up that might qualify as more than a trivial mention was this interview which was original published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. That single publication by itself, as it is simply an interview piece, I do not believe is enough to catapult Ball to the level of notability that we require here on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 21:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ball[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Timothy Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Global warming skeptic NN except for a few GW-related disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada's pre-eminent global warming denier. The Globe and Mail called him "Mr. Cool," although the accompanying feature was anything but complimentary.
Still, at least he was getting attention.
Again, I don't say our article should be laudatory; it should be informative. --Yopienso (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is that the source you're choosing to quote from in HUGE LETTERS isn't usable, as you know full well. And you also know that if anyone wrote "Ball is Canada's pre-eminent global warming denier" in his article, the usual BSLP zealots would run screaming to arbcomm saying "lookit the bad man!". So your point, correctly interpreted, would appear to be that there really isn't much notable coverage of him William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's BSLP? Au contraire, my point is that there is significant coverage. --Yopienso (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William makes an important point - we can't use blogs (or IMDB, iirc) as sources about living people. So what's the point of even bringing them up? Simply to mislead people who don't bother to click the links? Guettarda (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't allege bad faith on my part; I wish everyone would click on the links. Here's the one to Charles Montgomery's award-winning article on Ball and Co. that was published in the Globe and Mail in 2006. --Yopienso (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very first source...dedicates paragraphs 3-7 to him - while it dedicates several (1-sentence) paragraphs to his opinion, all it actually says about him is "a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada" and "Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle". I'm equating publicity, not in-depth detail, with "significant coverage." - that, I believe, would be a mistake. We can't use "publicity" to write an article. A series of quotes without actual information about a person is pretty much useless from the perspective of trying to write an encyclopaedic biography. "In-depth coverage" is coverage of the subject - in this case, the person. The only source that even starts to look at Ball as a person is Monbiot's article. And that certainly isn't "in depth coverage", it's merely questioning his veracity. Guettarda (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is your and WMC's opinion against mine. I welcome any response you may have, but I think I've enunciated my view as clearly as I can and further comment from me would just be stubborn argument. WP certainly doesn't have to provide this information; readers can always go to all those other sites. --Yopienso (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to stick to the reliable sources and not venture outside of them except for extremely uncontroversial details. However, if the article should therefore remain a stub it should remain a stub because we cannot verify the oil industry funding accusations etc. in reliable sources. We are all aware of the excess of material on the internet about this guy but should stick rigorously to the reliable sources which are clearly sufficient for a stub. Polargeo (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the local paper interview/profile seems to be a reprint of a story published in more prominent source.[1] Sailsbystars (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that is published as an opinion piece. It also contains nothing new on Ball, but only repeats his opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I realized that myself and that fact substantially weakens the case. Dropping to weak keep, but I still feel that the amount of media coverage is adequate (albeit barely) to meet WP:BASIC. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does WP:BLP1E not apply if he is only notable for one thing? That would mean he gets mentions in global warming controversy, not in a personal bio. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does not apply here. This is not about one event. Good try though. I stand by my keep. - Josette (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur in the supreme court sense of the word. I can see meeting WP:GNG and WP:BIO but not WP:PROF unless you're referring to criteria 7, which is a pretty big stretch as he is not particularly prominent amongst climate contrarians. Also, H-index and G-index are excellent metrics for evaluating PROF criteria #1 and should not be dismissed lightly. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the first list of references (in as far as they are freely available), and none of them "covers" Ball. They all drop his name and mention his sceptic position in one sentence, without significant information on Ball. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that WP:PROF is a bit of a stretch, but I think he still meets it. NO matter though since he meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Stephan, it is also true that those articles are not primarily about Ball, but they are not just offhand mentions either, and those are only representative of the first few Google hits. There is enough coverage about him and enough information about him that a biography can be written. Minor4th 01:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove BLP status. There is no BLP to speak of, but there may be enough about Timothy Ball in the media to warrant a separate article on the climate change aspects related to Timothy Ball. Such an article has to contrast his views with the proper scientific perspective on climate change (and explicitely state that the latter is the accepted view), even if that would violate the BLP policy. If that's not allowed, then we have to conclude that Wikipedia cannot have an article on Timothy Ball. An alternative may be to write something about Timothy Ball in the Global warming controversy article. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was listening to one of his denialist lectures (mp3s are up on archive.org), and ducked into wikipedia to find out some background on the fellow. It would seem very weird to me if there were no page about this man (and I'm disappointed with how sketchy it is: I think people have confused the need to avoid attacks on a living person with avoiding discussion of controversy about a person's opinions). Whether he's notable as a scientist is irrelevant, he's clearly a public intellectual. -- Doom (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an academic. At best Ball was a minor academic who did essentially no research, and certainly no significant research and had no influence on education beyond the students in his classroom. As an academic he has had no influence on his field or his university. Thus the current entry, which emphasizes his academic record should be deleted. A stronger case could be made for an entry emphasizing his organization of lobbying organizations, newspaper op-eds and public speaking, although that would be a VERY contentious entry, with edit wars constantly erupting. In that regard it might be noted that Ball's notoriety is fading in the past few years.

Perhaps the community should at this point, think about how to handle the situation (Ball's is not the only case) of how minor academics use their positions to leverage a public presence and at what point they become significant enough in the public sphere (including the INTERTUBES) to merit inclusion. If you want an example, consider PZ Meyers. -- Eli Rabett {talk} —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good idea! Notice how the argument here is that Ball can be considered only on an academic basis, while the argument at PZ Myers says his academic achievements are irrelevant and what makes him notable is his blog and activism. On this page, Ball is disparaged for the low number of papers he's published, while only the word "numerous" was allowed on PZ's article and the actual number was suppressed. (If Ball only has 4, which is controversial, PZ's 11 is significantly larger.) Etc. --Yopienso (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, PZ Myers is 53 and got his PhD quite a while after 1979. Ball is 71, got his PhD in 1970 and is now retired. In other words Ball's academic career is likely over. Myers may still be at just reaching his peak for all we know Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. Can you find a publication of PZ's after 1997? I looked here and here. He seems to be an assistant professor who has practically abandoned academia, as far as research is concerned, for the blogosphere. He could, of course, change his tack at any time. --Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Myers had a number of highly cited articles on the zebrafish, which is an important model system for genetics and evolution before 1999. One of them has over 300 cites and two others over 200. Ball has nothing like that. An excellent tool for citation analysis using Google Scholar is Harzing's Publish or Perish. However, Eli thinks you are missing his point. Myers' Wikipedia biography focuses on his blog and opinion shaping activities. His academic record is handled in passing. Ball's is much more tightly focused on his academic activity. If you want to split hares, Myers has certainly done more noteworthy academic work in the past than Ball, but the focus of the Wiki Bio for PZ is where it should be for anyone (other than a zebrafish fan) -- Eli Rabett {talk}
That's because Ball's is in its early stages. He has been active enough in the climate wars we should have a bio on him for people such as Doom and myself who turn to WP to find out who people are. There has been no response from my query on the talk page about how reliable we may consider an article no longer available from the Globe and Mail. I believe it's a RS, but it has a couple of problems. It would be easy to cite criticisms from it if allowed. Today I have added a number of venues in which he has appeared as a climate warrior. I made a point of identifying all but Hannity & Colmes as extremist or right-wing. This should say something to the reader. What I object to is the contradiction of stance between arguments against even having a bio on him and arguments insisting we must on PZ. I think we should on both. Some time ago the same kind of arguments were made against Fred Singer, "He hasn't published anything recently!" I'm just saying, neither has PZ. So what? None of them merit a bio on the strength of their academics. Thank you, Mr. Rabett, for your helpful participation hare. --Yopienso (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Ball got his PhD in 1983 and retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. Another note for those editing his article - his teaching career at U of W is being presented in a very misleading way. It seems he taught there starting in 1971 just not as a full professor until 1988. - Josette (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those issues that give academia a confusing name. Ball was at UofW starting in 1971. He says that he was an Instructor/Lecturer, from 1971 to 1982, and from 1977 to 1978 Acting Dean of Students. He certainly only had an MA at the time, and the question has to be asked what was he teaching with that fairly low qualification, was he full time, etc. Frankly it is not worth anyone's time to get into, but it is clear that he was not a very prominent academic. -- Eli Rabett {talk}
OK, fixed it. You could have! Besides waiting for consensus on whether the Mr. Cool article is a RS, I really don't have much time to spend on it. --Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2010 (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.
Category