Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot model

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 4 July 2024 (→‎Hot model: revise !vote to merge, per Alalch E.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hot model

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

Hot model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a article which can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject, and one which must be covered in larger inclusive articles. It should not be a separate thing. Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, after merging anything worthwhile into relevant topics (it isn't immediately clear which, since our coverage of climate change modelling seems fragmented as it is) . Merge. There is nothing in any source cited to justify treating the article topic as anything more than a single facet of a broader subject, and doing so is almost certainly detrimental to understanding of the science behind climate modelling. It is liable to give the misleading impression (at least, I hope it is misleading - if it isn't, it doesn't say much for scientific rigour) that specific climate models are being rejected solely because they give results which differ from those previously obtained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite that. A subset models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods. Specifically, the models conflict with 'real world' data like satellite observations. This makes it more understandable that, when modelled data and empirical data conflict, most climate scientists prefer the empirical data. Still, you hit on the reason why this is an ongoing subject of debate, see e.g. [1][2] for accessible summaries. That is why I thought we have an article about the phenomenon and why I'm disappointed to see it nominated for deletion. If merged elsewhere, I think readers will struggle to find information on this subject specifically. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to merge, after seeing Alalch E.'s suggestion to add this content to the Climate sensitivity article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not really sure how to respond to this nomination. The subject is clearly notable – the five sources cited in the article are just a small subset of those available. can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject is not an argument for deletion I've encountered before and seems to be flatly contradicted by Wikipedia:Summary style. That it must be covered in larger inclusive articles and should not be a separate thing are just bare assertions, no? I obviously disagree. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability: Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. The context here is obvious. And indeed, your comments above explaining that "models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods", and rejected when "data and empirical data conflict" provides it. Climate models in general are (or should be) assessed on the same premise, and may be rejected on the same basis. There is nothing specific to 'hot models' that makes their rejection atypical. It is climate modelling science working as it should: which doesn't require special treatment for a subset of cases being treated the same way as any other. Or separate Wikipedia articles.
As for readers struggling to find information, that is what redirects are for. Though frankly, I have my doubts that many interested in that particular subject would be searching for 'hot models' as a title anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that they're not atypical. They do require special treatment, and that is why they are a distinct subject of significant coverage in both popular and scientific sources: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. And note the use of the phrase 'hot models' specifically in all of those sources.
You and Qwirkle both appear to be arguing here that this subject is notable but doesn't merit a standalone article, but you haven't said why the context that is apparently missing can't just be added to the article, summary style; you haven't identified what that larger article should be; and you've !voted delete instead of merge. That doesn't make sense to me. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I haven't named any specific article to merge to because Wikipedia coverage of climate modelling is fragmented, and it is not at all clear where the material should be merged to. This fragmentation is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of a Wikipedia readership which is, one assumes, composed almost entirely on non-specialists looking for overviews and broad explanations of the science (which doesn't reject 'hot models' because they are 'hot'), rather than searching for two-word phrases that would in any other context would mean something else entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the below comment where I've pinged you, as I have identified the article to merge into. —Alalch E. 18:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, seems a sensible suggestion - I've revised my !vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hot_model&oldid=1232630328"