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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Synthetic original research was used to create this list which is essentially a WP:POVFORK meant to trumpet or an WP:ATTACKPAGE meant to denigrate the included "scientists". Either way, not encyclopedic. jps (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ATTACKPAGE DocumentError (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking any source indicating notability as a subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it doesn't seem to be intended as an attack page, there are serious BLP issues which may arise from associating working, professional scientists (which would describe at least a few of the people on the list) with such a black-and-white declaration of their position on a politically-sensitive issue. The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy touches on some further problems. It is also not clear how Wikipedia is served by creating this list; again, while the intent at work in its creation is probably innocent, the effect is to create a nifty bit of inappropriate WP:SYN – bolstering a particular fringe POV – by collating and summarizing as many anti-thimerosal claims as possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above, this page serve as nothing but to reflect pov statements. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a huge WP:COATRACK. Many of the people listed on this page are insufficiently notable to have their own articles too. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleet per all of the above. this is original research, POV nonsense. Ww don't have "List of scientists supporting the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy", which incidnetally doesn't seem to be a theory. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK and because of the BLP issues raised by TenOfAllTrades. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on rationale of notability but would support delete on the basis of WP:BLOWITUP because there are serious WP:V problems here. I do not feel this article should attempt to be a list of scientists who "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy", but would support this content being moved to List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy because that number is relatively few and it would relieve BLP concerns. The book Bad Pharma has a chapter on this topic, and suggests that despite the thimerosal controversy becoming a major international controversy, there was scientific consensus on one side and only a few researchers in opposition. Lists on Wikipedia are almost always original research as is the category system, but at least in the case of lists it is possible to provide citations to verify whether a statement is so. It seems that right now many entries in this list are poorly cited and also as I said, I feel that this list should be reserved for people for whom their position on this issue is key to their public identity and not those for whom this affiliation is merely incidental. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I quite follow your reasoning here. If it is anticipated that this list will have (and likely will only ever have) a small number of entries, it strikes me as much less POV-fork-ish to simply mention the individuals – or their research – with appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the proper (NPOV) context of thiomersal controversy. Biographical articles for individuals with sufficient independent notability – whether as scientists and researchers, or in relation to this specific topic – will of course be linked as normal. Individuals whose noteworthiness (or notoriety) is insufficient to warrant a free-standing Wikipedia biography or a mention in thiomersal controversy are not significant enough players to warrant creation of a separately-maintained list article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this article contains enough content to fork from the thiomersal controversy article and it would be undue to include it. It should not be merged there as a list, although some of this could be included as prose. If these are all major figures in the controversy, and they could be, then it could be awkward to merge so many biographies there. I see seven biographies here with linked Wikipedia articles and would support the exclusion of all individuals who do not meet inclusion criteria, but I feel that 7 is a reasonable number of items to justify a list. If this information is good and there are no challenges to its quality then I think it should be kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. Delete. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK - I agree with Bluerasberry that there is probably some salvageable material here, but I believe anything saveable should be merged into the articles about the thimerosal controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with any notable aspects to be covered in more encyclopedic pages, as noted above. -- Scray (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP violation. In most cases the sources do not establish that they oppose "the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy" (whatever that means). In July 1999, the US Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure, and several people on the list have made statements totally consistent with that. -- 101.119.29.207 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenOfAllTrades. Any biographies should just contain the fact and sources documenting their opposition and a wikilink to the main article at Thiomersal controversy. While we have much greater latitude for lists than for articles, this one creates an undue weight issue by giving a fringe position such prominence. The same applies to List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It too should be AfDed, but many previous attempts have failed. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources to establish notability of the topic. (I disagree with the claim that it is an attack page.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a highly misleading list compiled by an editor. Fortunately WP:DUE still rules, and it is not satisfactory for an article to essentially say "the following is nonsense, but we're going to list it anyway because it might convince a reader that there must be a vaccine problem". Further, a scientist may well have raised objections about a particular study, or about the general issue, but now has a different view based on an assessment of currently available data. Science is not a vote, and even if it were, it is UNDUE to list a small number of objectors without listing the vast majority of scientists who support the mainstream position. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, which lack sources establishing notability. I am One of Many (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2013 (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.