Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fg2 (talk | contribs)
25,366 edits
Added a colon to Category:Global warming skeptics within Deamon138's comment to make it visible and to prevent putting this AfD (and WP:AFD) in that category.
Line 36: Line 36:
::There is no NPOV issue. The dissenters get this list, and the supporters get to be called "mainstream." [[User:WillOakland|WillOakland]] ([[User talk:WillOakland|talk]]) 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
::There is no NPOV issue. The dissenters get this list, and the supporters get to be called "mainstream." [[User:WillOakland|WillOakland]] ([[User talk:WillOakland|talk]]) 07:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


: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. [[User:Deamon138|Deamon138]] ([[User talk:Deamon138|talk]]) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Deamon138|Deamon138]] ([[User talk:Deamon138|talk]]) 08:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:50, 30 May 2008

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

AfDs for this article:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=215938828"