From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Harold Ambler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Harold Ambler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page seems to fail WP:BASIC. The subject seems to fall under WP:BIO1E, with almost all coverage centering on a Huffpost article from 2009. In a related manner, there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, with most appearing near the 2009 date.

My review of the seemingly strongest sources show that they do not cover all necessary criteria to support notability. Interviews tend to be short and promotional, with no in-depth coverage by secondary figures. (There are also some in which Ambler plays a more 'expert' role, but these don't contribute to notability). Jlevi ( talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jlevi ( talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete - this is even with the present state of the article being a vast improvement over puffed-up and promotional previous versions, which listed passing mentions in a newsblog as separate paragraphs. BLP1E at best, no evidence of notability, lots of promotional puffery - David Gerard ( talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:CONTN says the "present state of the article," or "Article content" does not determine notability. -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
That's not my argument - it's that it doesn't now, and that this is after cleaning the nonsense out - David Gerard ( talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (article creator).
Collapse too long discussion, to substitute short summary

Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Harold_Ambler, and the removal of secondary sourcing leading up to this Afd. [1] Ambler has been covered from 2009 through 2017, in numerous independent, reliable sources (as well as many less reliable blog type secondary sources). Ambler's 2009 piece "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" was the third-most e-mailed blogger piece on The Huffington Post for more than 18 months. His 2009 book, Ever True: The History of Brown Crew, got attention on TV and radio (and is referenced in Wikipedia). His 2011 book, Don't Sell Your Coat, was endorsed by Freeman Dyson (and others): "How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming? Read Don't Sell Your Coat to find out." - Freeman Dyson. In 2012 he was interviewed extensively about his background, books, controversies, science and politics views, etc. on WBLQ radio, and on MRC TV. Not only is there significant secondary coverage, but there is (I think it's called) tertiary coverage of his TV appearance, in a report by Union of Concerned Scientists. [2] In 2009, 2012, and 2013 he was on Fox TV several times for several minutes each for interviews about his views, books, politics, controversies, etc. In 2014 he was a speaker at the Libertarian party National convention. In 2017 his views were covered in a paragraph in The_Spokesman-Review, about equally with Allan_Savory, Michael Crichton and Joel Salatin, as examples of climate skeptics. [3] Ambler got significant attention (pages) in independent books in 2010 and 2014. Plus he has a music career from 2007 to ~present, with some notice in independent reliable sources. So, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but this looks more like WP:SUSTAINED to me anyway. WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied" as it is being misapplied here - See Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. -- Yae4 ( talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

If you could highlight the top two or three sources that you feel follow the WP:BASIC criteria, that may help subsequent reviewers sort all of this out. Jlevi ( talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Two specific references are linked in the above comment, both failing WP:BASIC. The first is just one out of four quotes used as an examples of 'denigrating climate science.' This doesn't qualify as significant coverage, and the coverage is primarily of media outlets, rather than of Ambler himself. The second is a single paragraph, and so again fails significant coverage. I don't suggest that these are the strongest sources, but strong sources have not yet been highlighted specifically. Jlevi ( talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
The stuff cleaned out was a completely standard WP:REFBOMBing, e.g. all the "citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." It wasn't good and didn't add notability - David Gerard ( talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Videos and audios are worth thousands of words, so the following videos, and one book at the end: 2009, ~5.5 minutes on Fox News Red Eye re: Ambler's blog, HuffPost piece, why, what happened, his background and experiences, whether people take science and climate seriously, his wife's reaction, musician with interest in sports and climate, celebrities and qualifications, his book Ever True: History of Brown Crew and connection with climate interest, mentions his future book on climate, background as rower and surfer. [4] 2012, 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: book Don't Sell Your Coat, affects on his ability to publish, why a skeptic, what he did to investigate, credentials, celebritites, historical climate perspective, answering questions from 3 panelists, family, environment, pollution, etc. [5] 2012, almost 5 minutes Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: Celebrities Posing as Environmental Experts, influence, pollution, climate trends and calls for reduced CO2 emissions, clarifying CO2 effects and magnitudes in historical context, Keystone pipeline, big oil and fuel benefits, 3rd world, travel. [6] 2012, 22 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: background, Don't Sell Your Coat, background, Q/A... [7] 2012, 24 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: Music career, performing, Q/A, move to Austin and return, connections with climate skepticism reactions... [8] 2012, 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV discussing H. Clinton's visit to the Artic, and climate-related history and manipulation of perceptions, etc. [9] 2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, called a "sensible environmentalist," answered questions and discussed tar sands oil extraction and CO2, Keystone pipeline, Nasa/Hansen, carbon footprints versus moral footprints, benefits of low cost fossil fuels for poor people. [10] and 2014, 3 pages coverage in book The Joy of Hate. [11] -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy WP:BASIC? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. Jlevi ( talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in this diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the WP:BASIC notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. Jlevi ( talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
The guy has been on TV and radio numerous times, for much more than "soundbites," over several years. I've listed elapsed times and summaries, so pick however many you have time or interest to review. We disagree on what a Q/A interview counts towards, or whether a program is independent of the person being interviewed. -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm on radio and TV numerous times, and that doesn't contribute to my Wikipedia notability. Please answer in terms of WP:GNG and sub-pages of it, not this repeated handwaving - what are the sources that convincingly establish notability, per the letter of the Wikipedia notability guidelines? This will form a convincing argument. Remember, you're trying to convince people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard ( talk) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
David Gerard, I hate to compare, because it may look like casting aspersions, so I'll start with a point of agreement: "The encyclopedia is primary, not writing and discussing rules and policies." [12] I agree. Since you suggested a notability comparison: There are a couple similarities, but a lot of differences, supporting Ambler's notability. Similarity: Both advocate against a kind of hysteria (Ambler-Climate or Gerard-Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency). Similarity, but with magnitude and scope difference: Ambler wrote two published books on widely different topics - history of rowing (~600 pages), and climate (270 pages), with some connections; Gerard recently self-published one (180 pages). Ambler wrote or edited for several prominent publications over several years. Contrary to what Jlevi says, people interview and ask about Ambler the person- his experiences, his involvement in controversy, how it affected him and his family, his motivations, his music, his writing on more than just one topic, his art - music, finances, selling his guitar, and getting it back; not just what he says about a boring, nerdy topic. This is seen or heard in the TV and radio links already given. Ambler gets outdoors in the weather and does interesting things - rowing, surfing, performing music, and also writes about interesting things; Gerard writes about a nerdy computer-related topic. Ambler talks, in broadcast interviews, about people who mostly sit indoors looking at screens; Gerard may be one? Ambler was included in speeches in the US Senate. [13] [14] Does Gerard appear in Parliament speeches? A "TV star" described Ambler, among 3 pages coverage in an independently published book, as "a charming, good-looking person to star in one of those commercials for the New York Times Sunday edition..." [15]; I did not find similar about Gerard (not to say it doesn't exist). Ambler's first book, Ever True, has been a source in Wikipedia since 2011. [16] AFAIK, Ambler is not involved in Wikipedia, and there are no arguably promotional links to his web pages and books, aside from this new Article; Gerard's 2017 book appears only in (many) Talk pages and User pages, more than a couple times in context of potential COI concerns being raised. [17] Web crawlers know all about Gerard's WP User page and associated links (to personal/business pages). [18] [19] Ambler has WP:SUSTAINED independent coverage for over a decade; Blockchain (or Gerard) has 2-3 years? -- Yae4 ( talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Here is a more concise, limited set of sources, in chronological order, showing 5+ years of significant, independent coverage. (Claims of "copyvio" issues with a couple links are being dealt with.)

2009 HuffPost piece. Signficant, independent coverage at HuffPost and elsewhere.
2009 First book published, Ever True History of Brown Crew. Referenced at Brown Crew.
2009 5.5 minutes interview on Fox News Red Eye. [20]
2011 Second book published, Don't Sell Your Coat.
2012 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co. [21]
2012, 46 minutes on Spatharakis' radio show [22] [23] on WBLQ, in high population region. [24] [25]
2012 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV re H. Clinton. [26]
2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, re Keystone pipeline. [27]
2014, 3 pages independent coverage in book, The Joy of Hate. [28]

These cover Ambler's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing both books. The subject of these interviews is Ambler, and the coverage spans both of his books. Books are not "events", and in any case, Ambler has written two notable books, not one. Ambler is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable broadcasts including Fox News and WBLQ, and professionally performs music. -- Yae4 ( talk) 03:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I will cover these in order.
Huffpost: Not intrinsically notable, and notability of an article is not the same as notability of its author. Which of these provides significant coverage Ambler as an individual? Of those, which comes from a reliable source? And are they independent?
A book is not intrinsically notable, its notability does not necessarily confer notability to its author, and it would be a primary source with respect to Ambler. Most related materials appear promotional.
2009 Red Eye interview: This diff
second book: similar to the first book
Fox Business: I can't get this video to load. Could you perhaps provide timestamps for secondary coverage from the interviewer? It's highly likely to have the same promotional/fanboy problems of the Red Eye interview
2012 radio shows: As shown by our discussion on interview notability, this is a tricky piece of the puzzle, and should not stand without consideration. Are you able to address the questions raised in the discussion above?
MRCTV is just a video hosting site (I think?). The Weather Wise-Guys would need to be evaluated separately as a source, and this probably falls under WP:USERGEN. Haven't looked into it, however.
Joy of Hate: Alongside the long interviews, this is the other source that might help support a keep position. Note that the primary focus of the piece is the Huffpost event, though some other details are mentioned in the first paragraph. In addition, the source is pretty clearly
So the three pieces that need to be carefully evaluated are the two long interviews and Joy of Hate. In addition, there may be some source elided from the above list. Those are my quick comments. Jlevi ( talk) 03:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are plenty of sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
    • What are the ones that nail it for you, as an experienced Wikipedian? - David Gerard ( talk) 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This one is tough because Ambler has indeed received coverage that is about him, but I find the nominator's argument more convincing. As a published writer, Ambler can be evaluated under WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:NAUTHOR which requires not just getting published, but having your publications recognized by others as significant contributions to the field. His news work is typical reporting and opinionating just like many other non-notable writers. His Don't Sell Your Coat book indeed received coverage, especially from media sources slanted toward climate change denial, but that coverage is almost entirely short and promotional. (While it's a little off-topic, see also WP:NBOOK which requires non-trivial notice.) As for Ambler's other press coverage, he got noticed and quoted and briefly interviewed by a fair amount of denial-oriented media for that one controversial column in Huff Post in 2009, but that came and went, so WP:BIO1E applies as well. Again, I consider this article to be a close call, but in the debate above, the article's supporters are only perpetuating its main problems -- trying to promote a fringe individual and blaming vague conspiracies for the subject's own insignificance. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The arguments for keep depend on mis-application of notability standards and effectively come down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT while the arguments for deletion are based on serious deficiencies in the sources. The assertion that having "the third-most emailed piece in 18 months" is notable matches no criterion I've ever seen here, for example. Using a book cover blurb as evidence of notability verges on indiscriminate fanboyism. Despite great effort and great argumentation, the notability of the article subject rests on his writings, which are not covered in a significant way by reliable sources. The coverage that has been presented that is significant is not reliable, and vice versa. There are no relevant targets for redirect or merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Eggishorn, That quote is also a (too subtle) reference to cartoonist Cook and blogger Nuccitelli's paper that "was the most downloaded paper for that week across all Institute of Physics' journals,[18]" which was deemed worthy of mention, while not mentioning the paper needed correction, twice. See Skeptical_Science#Projects. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
There is a difference between whether an article should be created at all and whether certain details should be contained in the article. The first is a question of WP:notability. The when asking whether a particular detail about a notable topic is itself WP:NOTEWORTHY, that is a matter of WP:DUE weight and other content policies. A deletion discussion is one primarily of WP:Notability by various measures. Jlevi ( talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is essentialy a case of WP:BIO1E that is being blown way out of proportion and which cannot reasonably be considered a fundament for a biography. Fails WP:BASIC. Asav | Talk 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have also been interviewed a couple of times on radio and TV and been mentioned in a newspaper. I have not written any books yet but not all authors are notable. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per Asav's excellent summary of the situation. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 22:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is basically a WP:COATRACK on which to hang climate change denialism. Guy ( help!) 23:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Asav & Guy. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Asav & Guy. - Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:BASIC for lack of significant coverage about the subject in independent sources. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Snow delete. And WP:TROUT the article writer. jps ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harold_Ambler&oldid=1137899975"