Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Gray (consultant)

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 --Step hen 08:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Gray (consultant)[edit]

No evidence for notability presented William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- per news search, a crackpot? perhaps --- but clearly a notable one. --- tqbf 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some of those hits are old news, as in 1947. There are more than one Vincent Grays... Brusegadi (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but I took that into account. Vincent Gray is regularly written up in mainstream/notable publications as an opponent of climate science. Here's 2006 from the NZ Herald. --- tqbf 23:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search brings plenty of sources and sufficient notability. Article already has tag for the addition of more info with regard to notability. Joshdboz (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof of notability. Brusegadi (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little information is available on Gray. The only sources we have for such basic information as his university degree and career history are a few partisan blogs and other sites with vested interests. This reflects absence of notability and does not bode well for adhering to WP:V and WP:BLP. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading the rest of this AfD debate before commenting? Here's another source, this time on an ABC.au Radio show. --- tqbf 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nom also has a WP page where his university degree is sourced with his own web page, and you would not suggest that additional sources are required to support that statement would you? --Childhood's End (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per tqbf + book published by the article's subject, which is quite more than what many other persons covered by WP articles can say. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily notable, has book published, interviewed in various publications, etc etc. Oren0 (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mere publication of one book is not notability. If there is evidence that the book has been widely noticed in a substantial way, put it into the article. Keep and move to Vincent R. Gray on the basis of the information added, but he is not a (consultant)in the usual sense, nor can he be called (scientist) because he is not a scientist, regardless of what some ill-informed media sources say. But since he has a middle initial, that could simply be added. DGG (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I try to change your mind? Put the book aside, and the subject still seems to be someone the media has consulted repeatedly as a climate science skeptic. I am not a skeptic, but I worry that people are voting their opinion of the subject's research, and not the subject's notability. See above arguments. --- tqbf 22:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor correction; views can't be based one's opinion of the subject's research, because the subject hasn't actually done research in this area (he has no publications on climate in any ISI-listed journal). Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But he as publications on climate in non-ISI-listed publications and some media, the IPCC and a publisher, seem to think it's good as well. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found nothing so far that makes him notable per WP:BIO, the publication of a monograph (which has how much impact?) is not sufficient. We haven't even got a WP:RS to verify his academic credentials. This is not even close to a borderline case - its close to a speedy delete. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sigh --- we're not here to vote on the value of this person's contributions; we're here to argue whether he's notable. He's been covered in the mainstream press. If he's marginally notable, let's strip down the article to bare facts. --- tqbf 01:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's been covered in the mainstream press, why isn't this in his article? Please add some of this "notable" coverage William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. I've cited 2 in this AfD by myself. The onus isn't on commenters in an AfD debate to clean up articles or add the sources; you should have addressed (and perhaps shot down) the evident sources in your nomination. --- tqbf 11:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has a non-notable tag on it for ages. No-one did anything. Even now its still very thin. If you hav more, please don't hide them, add them William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that we don't all respond to every cleanup tag on Wikipedia. An AfD is more likely to grab attention. I'm curious why you'd ask for more sources here after I've provided seven below and added two to the article. Are those not sufficient for you or are you just choosing to ignore them? Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources as venerable as the Hawaii Times? Its desperate stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a background in climate science, I too would be irritated by this guy, but that does not excuse you from actually reading the comments you reply to. Sources include the Hawaii Reporter, ABC.NET.AU, The NZ Herald, The Conservative Voice, New Scientist, National Business Review (evidently NZ's "Crains"), and others on Factiva. --- tqbf 23:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added two more sources that establish notability. One is a feature piece in the New Zealand Herald (with a picture, no less) that refers to him as a "prominent" climate skeptic. The other is a radio interview on ABC's Counterpoint. Does this help put the notability concerns to bed, or should we add more sources? He's mentioned very non-trivially by more than enough reliable sources to qualify as notable. Additionally, both of these sources refer to him as a scientist and I intend to propose a move back to Vincent Gray (scientist) should this article result in a keep. Oren0 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is the search that closes the debate. In addition to the two above, here are some more reliable sources in which he's non-trivially mentioned, generally as a "climate scientist" and/or "climate skeptic.": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. That's easily more than enough. I don't understand the speedy delete argument at all; with this many reliable sources it seems easily like an unquestionable keep. Oren0 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading a few of the news articles, I would say he is notable enough. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable from the sources. His page may require cleanup, though. --Shark face 217 20:43, 30 December 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.