Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW, (non-admin close). macy^talk 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This article is blatantly biased. I'm sorry but it only talks about scientists opposed to the consensus, yet there is no page that lists scientists that agree with the consensus. Besides, it is a ridiculous list anyway: I mean come on a Solid State Physicist? And his relevance to Global Warming is? Just because he's a scientist doesn't making him relevant, else we may as well let in any politician, economicist, person-in-unrelated-career etc into this article. If this article isn't deleted, I think a lot of this list needs to be purged.

^That's what I wrote on the article's talk page (yes I was the IP sorry I wasn't logged in). Basically, that's why I think this article needs to be deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was malformed. I've fixed it. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry I'm a n00b at all this! Deamon138 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps restrict to atmospheric scientists. A list of supporters would obviously be impossible to complete. This is not. WillOakland (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I definitely agree restrict to astomospheric scientists,that is a definite must. However a list of supporters is impossible to complete but so is a list like this, hence "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness." at the top of it. I assume you meant "A list of supporters would obviously be impossibly massive"? If so, a category would be much better, as then we could have both a for and against category, and not have to go into the detail about each. Deamon138 (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle and Strong Keep Titling it a "list" makes it fail on indiscriminateness, but "Scientific Theories Disputing the Existence of..." or something along those lines could work. I don't really get the stated rationale behind the AfD - is there an equal time requirement on Wikipedia I wasn't aware of? Townlake (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you suggest would duplicate the existing "Global warming controversy" article. I think a list is fine. WillOakland (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is an equal time requirement on Wikipedia: it's called WP:NPOV. Deamon138 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The title alone is biased against this article, making it appear as a list of pariahs from the main scientific community, where opposing views aren't allowed. The title should be identical except in sense. The views expressed are as valid as those on supporting man-made global warming.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What title are you referring to that is biased? It doesn't really matter whether the opinions are valid or not, just whether they've been covered in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 58 references listed, is there a problem? Who judges reliability, you?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, don't divert this into a discussion of scientific merit because it isn't relevant. WillOakland (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Founders Intent, the views on here arent't all valid: I gave the example of the solid state physicist as an example. How is he relevant. I would be saying the same if there was a list of those supporting the mainstream views and he was there, but there isn't. And anyway, if these views are as valid as those on supporting man-made global warming, where is the list (or category) for them then? Deamon138 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this nomination seems to be what is based on a bias. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article was nominated by a pretty green user (no pun intended). We need to keep this page. Besides, aren't lists supposed to go on WP:MFD or something? GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anything in the articlespace (ie without a prefix and a semicolon before the title) goes to AfD.137.111.143.140 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GO-PCHS-NJROTC but how is my nomination biased? I've nominated it not because of any view on the issue it's about, but because it isn't neutral (i.e. there isn't a counter list), and also because a lot of the names on this list aren't relevant to the subject. Besides, how am I "a pretty green user"? Where on Earth did that title come from? You are apparently accusing me of bias, with no evidence. Finally, did you just reply to yourself above? Deamon138 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article is about a specific subject, people who disagree with the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. Each entry is referenced (otherwise it would be removed) and the article is NPOV in its own right. The absence of a counter article on people who believe the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is not a reason for deletion. I'm not going to go into the blatant POV issues in some of the global warming articles because I simply don't have time and this is not the place. --Athol Mullen (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about people who disagree with AGW, it's about SCIENTISTS who disagree with AGW, most of whom I disagree over relevance/notability as mentioned above. It also isn't NPOV, since it's very existence without the existence of a counter-article is POV and is a reason for deletion. Why even say, "I'm not going to go into the blatant POV issues in some of the global warming articles" if you're not even going to expand? Regardless of the existence or non-existence of POV on related articles, this articles deserves to be discussed. What are you suggesting? That the existence of POV elsewhere somehow makes this POV right? Two wrongs don't make a right. Finally, a quick perusal of your talk page tells me that you hold a very skeptical view over the AGW consensus. Food for thought methinks.... Deamon138 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The list meets WP standards and is impeccably resourced. It's inclusion here is confusing.

Ecoleetage (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree that it is resourced well, however it does not meet WP standards so it's inclusion here is warranted. Delete Deamon138 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no NPOV issue. The dissenters get this list, and the supporters get to be called "mainstream." WillOakland (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is exactly that: a NPOV issue. They are called mainstream not because of a POV but because that is what it is called. Look up mainstream in the dictionary. But this article in itself isn't biased I agree there, however, it's existence is biased. For instance, on the AGW debate, we have two balanced (or meant to be, I don't know if they are) pages entitled Global Warming Controversy and Scientific opinion on climate change which is fair enough. However, we have this article here as well as Category:Global warming skeptics, which are both articles about on solely skeptics, with no alternative lists or categories describing the non-dissenting views. Surely that, by definition is POV. Deamon138 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it, there are mainstreamers and dissenters, but the dissenters are biased. So let's delete the dissenters so there is no opposing opinion on Wikipedia and only the pro-AGW view exists. And btw, you're a neutral person. Did anyone notice how quickly within like an hour the AFD on the other article was removed, by no less than a green administrator, but this article is still on the list the next day? Mr Schulz must have friends in high places. <<<Disregard, I should have known the why to this statement. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the disenters views are biased, whether they are or not is irregardless to this discussion. And I'm not saying that Wikipedia should only be for pro-AGWs either. The very reason I come to Wikipedia for information is so I can read a balanced, neutral opinion on a subject: this is not what I'm getting when there is no counter-argument article. And as to the stuff you insinuate, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is Mr Schulz? AfD on what other article? I don't understand. If you are trying ti say I'm biased well I'm not (and remember WP:FAITH, you have no reason to assumen I am biased and am not acting in good faith). I hope you aren't either, though by the look of your userboxes on Global Warming it could be guessed otherwise. I am not whoever going to stoop and accuse you of bias, I will respect WP:FAITH and I hope you will too from now on. Deamon138 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why should the list be restricted to the discipline Atmospheric Science? Mathematicians and statisticians are questioning the computer modeling used by pushers of the AGW paradigm. Geologists, oceanographers, biologists (both marine and land), volcanologists, botanists all have a dog in this fight. To arbitrarily restrict this to 1 specific discipline seems shady to me. L0b0t (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think it's amazing that the AfD for the AGW page was removed within 50 minutes, but this AfD has been here for almost 22 hours. I think it's clear that this article should be kept. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This nom. seems based upon a misunderstanding of POV. Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight tells us: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." With that in mind, as long as the article makes note of the AGW view, there should be no problem. As noted here, POV is not a reason to delete but rather an opportunity to improve an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks dude, I can feel the difference already. ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Having a "list of scientists who agree with scientific consensus" would be huge and almost possible to maintain. The notable dissenters, however, is easier, and probably more useful; by definition, there are less of them. Also, this is perfectly in line with UNDUE; I suggest the nominator review that particular guideline. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 30 May 2008 (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.