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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of number-one[edit]

Lists of number-one (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTPURP. It's not even clear (in its current iteration, or in its initial version) what topic it's exactly meant to cover. List articles with "number-one" in their name? Lists of the top X for various values of X? A music-specific index of lists of number-one songs and albums? "List(s) of number-one" seems like an implausible search term (and what would that reader even be looking for?). Zero incoming links. Colin M (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• btw, the most optimistic non-deletion outcome I can think of: maybe you could move it to List of number-ones and make it a DAB page linking to Lists of number-one songs and Lists of number-one albums. But if you think that page should exist, you might as well just make it from scratch? You get nothing from dragging along the corpse of this article except a confusing edit history irrelevant to the new scope, and a couple of weird redirects. Colin M (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, this does not appear to serve any useful navigational or indexing function. I don't think retitling will cure that. FWIW, in the category system, the higher level parent that includes the lists of number-one songs and albums is Category:Entertainment-related lists of superlatives. This isn't that in any event. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The collection of lists is woefully incomplete - there are hundreds of music charts - in addition number one when? Current? Past? updating the many lists would be a nightmare. WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lightburst and Postdlf. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:LISTPURP. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per nom. the title of the article is not clear Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unclear article NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. I also intend to creation protect the article. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming. This cross-categorization is described by many persuasive commenters below as non-encyclopedic per WP:LISTN. No prejudice to the creation of a list of climate scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Bishonen | talk 21:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming[edit]

List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:LISTN criteria: although some advocacy groups have attempted to compile indiscriminate lists of everyone who has a degree and doubts global warming in any non-academic venue, these efforts aren't really taken seriously by high-quality reliable sources. More importantly: the article is congenitally WP:UNDUE because it gives an inflated impression of the amount of doubt among actual experts writing in actual academic venues. And it invites WP:SYNTH because the inclusion criteria are not based on any sensible reading of reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nblund ^talk 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Sourcing is biased and obsolete. We don't want an eighth AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - In taking something nuanced and presenting it as binary, it distorts the positions of the scientists themselves, while there seem little basis for the opinions of some of those listed being the least bit noteworthy (the two biochemists being the most obvious). This is basically just a collection of 'anyone who has ever said something a climate change denier can claim supports their position', but 'everyone who doesn't entirely agree with X' is not a coherent grouping. Agricolae (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should have been done long ago. It's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by its own criteria. I never bought the arguments that Wikipedians were allowed to do this because it was a list. jps (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any utility it might ever have had is long past. Guy (help!) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Economists, chemists, zoologists, Astronaut? Who cares? There's no value in a list like this, it's just random collection of people who don't believe in climate change and happen to have a sciencey job. It will never be comprehensive, and it's dubious that it could be kept up-to-date, which is important for a list of BLPs with controversial opinions. (If we must keep it, then it should be trimmed to only include people from relevant fields, not just any rando scientist.) ApLundell (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm realizing that my comment here seems a bit flippant for such a controversal !vote, so I want to clarify that, in addition to whatever other problems it has, I was arguing that it was a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", which is basically a form of WP:SYNTH. My specific complaint is that "Scientist" is not a relevant category allowing the article to just become a coatrack. Additionally, when I wrote this comment, I thought that the list's intro addressed any concerns that it might be serving as a POVFORK, but after reading some of the comments here, I'm not sure I believe that anymore. A number of the !keep votes have argued that this list is a last bastion of WP:TRUTH that is otherwise being suppressed, and that defense is usually a sure sign of a POVFORK. ApLundell (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is not WP:OR or synth. The list easily passes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. This is a list for research purposes. As a service to our readers it is good that we have such a list. It is not easy to find naysayers, and here we have a collection of them. Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nuances matter. When we label, we discard nuance in favour of the simplistic. For example, does a ten year old opinion especially given the views today on climate change hold any water at all; opinions change. Does a single comment really encompass an entire view. And I do think there is some OR going on when we decide on a theme and then go looking for sources to underpin that theme. Readers might just google climate deniers and see what pops up. There's lots there to begin researching the topic. I'm not convinced it's our job to make this kind of list for readers especially when it appears, to me at least, to be non-compliant and that these days there are lots of ways of researching this very current topic. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone is well known for being a climate change denier, that can be mentioned directly at their BLP or even better, handled by a category. As others have mentioned, it's also an incoherent grouping not suitable for WP:LISTN, and has WP:DUE issues inherent within trying to keep such an ambiguous listing, so that furthers the need for dealing with specific examples in prose at relevant articles if they truly are DUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:CLN, lists and categories are complementary not exclusive and so we do not delete one to favour the other. Lists are better than categories for sensitive content like this because entries can be supported by citations which verify the classification. For example, consider category:Climate change skepticism and denial. This does not contain well-established sceptics such as Freeman Dyson. Instead, it contains disputed entries like Andrew Neil. That category is appalling as a list of BLPs because it doesn't qualify, explain or verify its entries. The list is better in this respect because each entry requires a supporting citation and they have been scrutinised and debated at length. Andrew D. (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with OP that the "group" of individuals qualifying for inclusion in this list doesn't comply with the basic idea of WP:LISTN. Further, a list of explicitly climate scientists might have been appropriate in some way at one point, but even then it would probably be useful only as a hit list for activists. Inclusion criteria are necessarily somewhat vague and subjective, and easily become outdated with implied BLP dangers. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A hit list for activists?? Nonsense. That certain people claim (or have claimed) that GW/CC should be dismissed because certain other people – allegedly "scientists" – disagree, then it is reasonable that this claim be verifiable by seeing just who is alleged to disagree. As to "implied BLP dangers" – what would those be? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a valuable list to research dissenting voices. At least a great starting place. WP:NOTCLEANUP the list can be organized and improved. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What serious research would begin by assembling a dossier of botanists, zoologists, and energy executives who had expressed dubious views on climate science in mostly non-academic venues? Experts would tell you that these sorts of indiscriminate lists are meaningless, and you are better off surveying the actual academic literature rather than cobbling together a list of cranks. Nblund ^talk 00:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all voices should be heard, and apparently 7 other AfDs had the same conclusion. You speak of organizing or discriminating based on profession. That is a content issue for the talk page, but not a reason to delete IMO. Lightburst (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inaccurate characterization. 3 of those previous AfDs did not come to the same conclusion, including the two most recent (they failed to come to a conclusion, which is not the same as concluding it should be kept). Agricolae (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is definitely not here to make sure "all voices" are heard.

If you're asking if we "discriminate" by emphasizing climatology from actual climatologists. Then yes. Wikipedia's guidelines make it very clear that we're supposed to do that. ApLundell (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a list of climatologists. I know the list offends you because of the word you used "cranks". The list is not about you or me, it is for our readers, and this easily passes NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I noticed. That's part of the reason it should be deleted. The title "Scientist" does not give someone any special authority with regards to climate change. I argue that it therefore fails NLIST, so far as NLIST advocates any policy at all, because it's a "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization".

ApLundell (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lists which give the article notability allow any type of scientist, not just climate scientists. Wikipedia doing otherwise would be original research. And personally I think that is one aspect of things like the Oregon Petition that was right and which is also done in Scientific consensus on climate change. Working scientists are expected to be trained and to use the scientific method and be able to give a reasoned view on scientific matters as opposed to the general public. Anyway outside of Wikipedia think what use is quoting climate scientists in support of climate science when deniers have cast them as a clique of corrupt money grubbers out to destroy economic growth? Dmcq (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remarkable statement that I missed on first read through. If I understand this justification correctly, the list here is "basing its notability" on lists that are acknowledged to be problematic (e.g. Oregon Petition), but this list is being used to fix those problems by redoing that misguided work in a better manner. Is that about right? jps (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is the notability of the topic as shown by reliable sources discussing the lists. We have to base the criteria on the lists but you'll see at WP:LISTN we're given a little leeway. And we're also required to give reliable sources justifying entries according to the sriteria. No that was just a digression about the non-policy based reasons for deleting given by many here, I was saying why I believe their ideas about deleting to counter denial are actually very counter productive. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming extremely problematic points such as (*) that sources such as the Oregon Petition are reliable for this purpose and (*) the groups being referred to are the same as those that are being delineated in this monstrosity. Neither of those points are ones with which I agree. jps (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 1. "Economists, chemists, zoologists, Astronaut" Come on - read their CVs. 2. There are many articles in Wikipedia discussing issues relating to 2-3% of populations. 3. What exactly is meant by, "the scientific consensus on global warming". There is conflation - even confusion between , "Is the climate changing?" , "Why is the climate is changing?" , "Can we prevent any climate change?" and "What can we do about any changed climate?". These issues are not yet solved. All this is worthy of investigation, including the legitimate uncertainties. Simply deleting this article does not conclude these ongoing and massive issues. Eohsloohcs (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no problems having Professor Mickey Mouse climbing aboard the climate alarmist bandwagon.^[1]

- however if you are a person with high credentials in this field, who casts doubt on this theology - that climate change is largely our fault, due to our reckless energy consumption which produces CO2, you will (be called a crank on this page) and get blacklisted. Eohsloohcs (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I agree there problems with people trying to puff it up, and the inclusion criteria could be improved, yet it is a place where the generalized notion of "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" is particularized as these "scientists". And that is very useful for seeing who they are, what kind of records they have, and the generally pathetic nature of the "lots of scientists disagree" argument. As to "no value in a list like this" because these aren't "real" scientists, or their statements are out of date: well, yes, that is the nature of every such list that the deniers have prepared or alluded to – these are not serious scientists, etc. Indeed, the main reason this list has gotten as big as it is because the deniers keep wanting to add to it. As long as the denialists argue that "there are scientists who disagree" with the mainstream view a list of such scientists is notable, and we should retain it. It is not UNDUE for giving an inflated view of how much doubt there is, it is entirely WP:DUE in showing how thin and weak is this alleged doubt.

The article should improved, but not deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the value of this list is that it's an intentionally lousy list to shame the crackpots? ApLundell (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles that make mention of who exactly holds such opinions (or has in the past). E.g. Oregon Petition. Rather than Wikipedia keeping its own mish-mash fight of who is a) or b), let's report on how others decide how to make these sorts of misguided lists. jps (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That petition is the mish-mash but it is part of the basis for notability of the topic.

As to 'value'. I think the list has value - but is not Wikipedia's job to consider the value of topics, only their notability. On the same basis what is the value of the Oregon Petition? Or hundreds of Pokemon games? Notability is the basis for inclusion. Value to society should not be considered - that way lies censorship.Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is NOT an "intentionally lousy list", it is a particularization of the hand-wavy claim that "there are LOTS of scientists who disagree" with the mainstream assessment. It provides a basis for our readers to see if there is any substance to this claim. If anyone ("crackpot" or not) feels shame for pushing this crappy claim, or for disagreeing against a tidal wave of evidence, hey, that's their choice.

The "Oregon Petition" does not support the claim that "LOTS of scientists disagree"; I am not aware of any other article that does. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is intentionally lousy as it intentionally and without apology abrogates an alphabet soup worth of WP:PAGs as documented on this page. I understand that you like the list as an object lesson, but that is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is supposed to be for (see WP:OR). No article on Wikipedia should support the claim that "LOTS" of scientists disagree. I'm not sure why you invoked that straw man. jps (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Where's List of scientists who agree with the scientific consensus on global warming? It's ~50 times the size of this article and pretty infeasible to manage; this having an article just for being a smaller topic is UNDUE. The differences between each person's positions at various times – one citation is from 1967 for some reason! – should not be reduced to a list of names without specifying details of "questioning the accuracy" and is not covered as a list in RSes. Reywas92^Talk 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a notable topic. That the sources that made it notable are stupid and not put into science magazines is not relevant. It passes the criteria for a list on Wikipedia. That it includes mostly scientists who have nothing to do with climate science is what the sources for notability do. Deleting it simply sends people to rubbish lists like the Oregon Petition, it does not help with the education aim of Wikipedia. This is about as good a list as one can get and is a basis for rational thought. I really wish Wikipedia editors would give up the idea of deleting anything which they don't like. Anything notable is reasonable for Wikipedia to cover and we should do so or Wikipedia will lose its reputation for neutral pint of view. We are not here to bowdlerize for the idiot public and convince them of the rightness of our ideas. We are simply here to present what is notable in as plain straightforward and factual a way as we can. Dmcq (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Oregon Petition a rubbish list but this list is not a rubbish list? jps (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was self selected and not properly checked. We have an article about it Oregon petition, see what Scientific American found out in its little check in 2001. They checked 30 of the PhDs in climate science, only one was actually doing anything related and two thirds of them even in 2001 would retract their signature if they could. And in 2001 I would have still considered it reasonable for some people to be skeptical to about the extent of the effects. How is it good to put up something like that on Wikipedia and remove properly cited details and which can have entries removed if they change their minds? The reason it is on Wikipedia is because the topic is notable. Neither article should be deleted. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rubbishness you've described with respect to the Oregon Petition is the same rubbishness from which our list suffers save one: the people we include are done so on anonymous users' original research to determine (a) the person is a "scientist" and (b) the person disagrees with the scientific consensus on global warming. At least with the Oregon Petition, it isn't our fault that it is rubbish. jps (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a funny idea of what WP:OR is about. By your reasoning every single article in Wikipedia would be deleted because an editor chose what to write down. There is no particular research needed to find the people in the list - they become obvious and are listed as a characteristic in categories when writing about the scientists. They don't hide it or have to have something ferreted out, they proclaim what they say. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that comply with WP:LISTN can avoid WP:OR by pointing to reliable sources that support the existence of a discrete "group" and that define the inclusion/exclusion criteria for that group. This article doesn't have that kind of support because the only sources that try to assemble these sorts of list are fringe advocacy organizations. I'm sure I could compile a list of Italian sex criminals, Serial killers who were registered Democrats, or Pilots who think we faked the moon landing, but those sorts of groupings would be meaningless and would really only serve to push a POV. Nblund ^talk 17:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Produce reliable sources that talk about those lists you made up and that would be good evidence of their notability according to WP:LISTN. Just look at the sentence itemising the lists and you'll see reliable sources discussing them. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Those lists" - that is exactly the problem. The lists reliable sources talk about are different from the list we have.

• Some crackpot compiles a list of "X that did Y", in order to "prove" that there is a connection between X and Y.
• Reliable sources talk about that list, pointing out that they do not prove what they claim to.
• Wikipedia editors compile another list of "X that did Y". This list contains different Xes, and it is a different list. If you believe in Platonic ideals, they both exemplify the same real thing, so somehow, one could argue that the reliable sources talk about the list the Wikipedian made. But in reality, they do not. The original crackpot and the Wikipedians have different criteria, and they have partly different goals. Therefore the sources that talk about the crackpot's list are not talking about the Wikipedia list, and they do not justify its existence.

This type of list is qualitatively different from List of mountains on Io, List of the kings of Epirus, List of intergovernmental organizations or even List of monuments damaged by conflict in the Middle East during the 21st century, because criteria for those lists have straightforward definitions. The people who work on those lists do not have to discuss "what exactly is a mountain", or "does this guy count as a king?" - professionals already decided that for them. But there are no professionals who define who belongs on a list like this.

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, which someone mentioned below, is also pretty clear.

List of popes is based on sources which already (arbitrarily) decided who counts as a pope, as opposed to an antipope. No Wikipedians need to invent their own criteria, as they did for the scientists-who-disagree list. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: There is so much wrong with this list that I'm unsure where to begin. I'll start by agreeing with the sound objections above. If someone is prominent in this area they should be mentioned or quoted at Climate change denial and/or it should be discussed within their BLP. There's no NPOV way to maintain such a list. The phrase "who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus" is so vague that it could even include a scientist who thinks climate change will be worse than the consensus view. --mikeu ^talk 00:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has been said in the short time since I commented above. I've reviewed the points discussed below and find support for this list unpersuasive. The criteria for inclusion has not been significantly improved since the last discussion ~5 years ago. The shortcomings of this list are blatant and unaddressed. On the off-chance that someone is willing to put in a great deal of effort to start a new list with much stricter criteria I would also be ok with a fresh start in draft space. --mikeu ^talk 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They have their own articles. This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type. I clicked a name at random David Legates and it has a lot about his climate opinions in the article for him. Are all of these scientists mostly known for their stance on climate? Do they at least get coverage for their stance on climate? Dream Focus 02:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem with this list - it is not a lists of "scientists of this type", it is a mishmash of all different types of scientists, with contradictory opinions, conflicting statements and differning expertise (from a lot to none whatsoever). Many of these 'scientists' are not 'mostly known for their stance on climate change' - for example, the list includes a biochemist and general curmudgeon who the last time he shot his mouth off became a poster-boy for the HIV/AIDS denialists. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Intrinsically vague and SYNTH-etic. Fails WP:LISTN for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. We do nothing good by heaping together people who have no relevant expertise and said a thing one time. XOR'easter (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, salt. It's perhaps a bit of an unusual case for salting, but the preventive action would still be appropriate. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't tell whether this is a shrine to denialism, a wall of shame, or just a pile of WP:SYN, but I don't think Wikipedia is the right place to be originating this sort of compilation. It appears that most or all of the sources are either on the general topic of denialism or on one specific person, not catalogs from which we can draw. And "people quoted for stuff they don't have expertise on" raises BLP issues as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Unencyclopedic shopping list that causes grave BLP issues by lumping people together in (effectively) a club of fools, based very often on cherry picked things they have said many years ago. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC); amended 16:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is like the lists peddled by creationists which contain scientists who supposedly oppose the theory of evolution. Its main purpose is giving a wrong impression on laymen who do not understand that there is more than one science, that scientists are typically specialists for one tiny part of the whole of science and laymen for all the rest, that argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy, and that a few hundred scientists are a minuscule minority. We have a Category:Climate change skepticism and denial and, as mentioned above, articles such as Oregon Petition, which is enough for finding such people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you (and Alexbrn) have not read the previous comments, and/or don't understand the difference between 1) making a claim (that "LOTS of scientists disagree ..."), and 2) presenting the evidence that (allegedly!) supports the claim. Also, the Oregon Petition, with its 30,000+ signatories, is not "enough for finding" alleged scientists that disagree (distinct from those who claim some kind of association with science). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did read them. I just see no reason why we should "present the evidence". Wikipedia editors wrote this list. They decided it is a subject worth writing about. They decided what the criteria are for inclusion in it. They decided how to subcategorize it, with detailed descriptions of what people in the categories believe and what they do not believe. They could, with the same justification, have written another list, on another, slightly different subject, with other inclusion criteria and other subcategories. Now please go compare that to WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia editors wrote this list [etc.]": of course, who else writes any list/article on WP? And all those functions you cite are routine editorial functions, applicable to all lists. You seem to think that WP editors shouldn't assemble any kind of list ("original work") beyond copying the list from a source (which then runs into copyvio problems). This is an incorrect view of WP:OR. WP:OR prohibits "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves" – where do you see that? WP:OR prohibits any material that is not "attributable to a reliable, published source". Can you point to (or better yet, tag) any such material here?

For all the "OR-waving" going on here I have yet to see anyone point to specific instances of WP:OR. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an argument that assembling a list is routine and not original. I don't buy it. What is "new analysis" is the connection between (a) credentials of a scientist and (b) denial of a particular conceptualization of the scientific consensus on global warming. This requires leaps of interpretation to do and is best left to the production by competent experts who can have their assemblage vetted by third parties. What we should not be doing here at Wikipedia is inventing such lists. That's where WP:OR comes in. Not every list that can be made deserves a Wikipedia page. We should be stubbornly and outrageously conservative when it comes to such work. It's straightforward to list the countries of the world. It is not straightforward to cobble this particular list together. This is why I recommended elsewhere that you take on this activity in another venue. Oh, and what you seem to be overlooking is the important WP:SYNTH part of WP:OR. I would turn your question around. What source do we have which indicates that anyone else has ever assembled a list like this anywhere? jps (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this source: Heartland's 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares.

See also McCright and Dunlap 2000 ("Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem", available here), who review a number of "lists of skeptics". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland's list? Really? That's the reliable source you think we are basing our list on? I think you must be joking here. Crucially, McCright and Dunlap do not argue in favor the criteria we specify for lists. jps (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - Tentative, because I do see some merit in the list but I share the concern that people will be added to this list based on weak evidence (e.g. statements they ma have made years or decades ago). If we do keep this article, it will have to be rigorously patrolled and the WP:RS policy will need to be scrutinized to ensure that the sourcing is timely and that the statements being attributed are not later contradicted by later statements by the same person. A better approach IMHO would be to specifically single out scientists who have gone on record as disagreeing with AGW consensus. Omanlured (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• History The nominator advertised this nomination elsewhere, saying "I couldn't find any past AfDs on this..." This was puzzling as the topic has an extensive history at AfD. Looking into this, I reckon that the use of the ((article history)) template is the problem, as this obfuscates the article's history by showing none of it and, instead, just shows a brief comment that is easy to miss. So, we should note that the page in question has not just been at AfD 8 times before, it has also been at DRV 4 times too. And, of course, the page is still here. Since the page was created in 2005, over 14 years ago, it has been edited over 4000 times by over 700 editors. Last year, it was read over 100,000 times and so, over the years, it must have had over a million readers. And that's not counting all the mirrors and translations.

Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising AfDs (neutrally) on relevant noticeboards is a good thing. The last AfD on this article was in 2013. Things have moved on since then. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn is the 5th most active poster on that noticeboard. ජපස (jps) is the most active. Notice how they both rush here so quickly. Andrew D. (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a "watchlist". (We also have a special alerting service[1] - recommended!) Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson seems to be implying that something improper has happened here, I'd like him to spell his accusation out clearly, please. ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of thing are you referring to by 'things have moved on'? Things like we have the unsocial media nowadays and universities stop people talking whose views offend a lot of students? Dmcq (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, NPOV and sourcing standards are taken more seriously. Alexbrn (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give an example where you think that is in the least relevant to this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about a smarter, more conscientious community than any particular article. As an example I offer myself: a rather more conscientious and WP:PAG-savvy editor than I was in 2013! Remember the concept of WP:CCC is enshrined in policy. The impending deletion of this daft article is further evidence of this "C" change. Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds to me to be pretty much exactly what I was saying but you denied. Content by consensus rather than notability. Dmcq (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I "denied" nothing. The mighty tide of consensus (i.e. general agreement based on the WP:PAGs) is the fundamental basis for the working of Wikipedia. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, on the other hand, is a bad thing – and apparently what has led to the persistence of this article. With fresh outside eyes on it we can clean this mess up to the advantage of our Project. Alexbrn (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD closed as "no consensus" six years ago. It's time we revisit this question. We are not bound to the mistakes of the past either. This is a wiki, after all. jps (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Moreover, the closing admin's comment in 2013 concluded by saying that the no-consensus result does not preclude future deletion nominations if the serious concerns about the structure and content of this article, including some of those mentioned above, are not addressed to the satisfaction of most editors. The tenor of the policy-informed opinions in the annual discussions about deleting this list seems to trend towards deletion, and it is the responsibility of those who wish to keep the article to seriously engage with, rather than to simply dismiss, these concerns. I would argue that, six years later, these concerns about structure and content have not been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Fringe Theories Noticeboard, and as usual with FTN no notice was given here but the usual crowd piled in :-( Dmcq (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Dmcq seems to not like the fact that we try to keep WP:FRINGE enforced at this encyclopedia. Poor baby probably should be topic banned. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs)

ජපස . . . whatever your name is, an uncalled for cheap shot in my opinion. You should bother to look at the recent talk page under "editorializing." DMCQ and I had a long back and forth about statements the I believed unduly bolstered the position of those advocating climate change. His rationale for keeping the statements was that the counter point of view was fringe and should not be given undue weight. Now, I disagree with the conclusion that the opinions of the 80 scientists on the list are fringe (in fact, usually I find that its the theories that warn that the earth is coming to an end that are the ones properly characterized as "fringe.") Nevertheless, I respect his logic for enforcing the fringe rules, even if I disagree with his conclusion. Kolg8 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely agree with Kolg8, but in this I fully concur: that was an uncalled for cheap shot. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's not a cheap shot to insinuate bad behavior when usual crowd piled in :-(, eh keepers? Clutching your pearls over my rejoinder seems cheaply opposed to the rationale of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio at least. I don't think DMCQ is worse for the wear. jps (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed any such insinuation. But perhaps I lack your refined sensibilities. And if on that account you're worse for wear perhaps you shouldn't be in the pool. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The nominator and subsequent arguments above have pretty much summed up the many issues with this list, including WP:SYNTH, the vague nature of the inclusion criteria, and the fact that the topic is far to nuanced to be able to create any sort of split between "agrees' and "disagrees". The number of prior AFDs on this list are completely irrelevant to the current discussion, as the last one was close to six years ago, and resulted in No Consensus. That is more than enough time to be allowed to revisit the discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. BLP issues mainly, and encyclopedias just generally don't have lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus on any topic. Their opinion belongs in the respective articles on the controversial subject (with caveats), but a blanket list is OR and not a good idea. RockingGeo 岩石 Talk 17:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and per the other points made above. Cranks are well-known to maintain such lists of authoritative-sounding people to bolster their own legitimacy, and this list is just another in this genre. Long past time to kill it. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Trayvon Martin because it could be used by those with a racist agenda. Lists like these cut both ways; it's kinda like how list of female scientists in the 20th century cuts both ways because if people are reading it and thinking, "Hmm, I only recognize one or two people out of this list," it calls into question whether the group in question really includes a lot of top-tier talent in the field; and if not, well, people can draw their own conclusions. The information itself is unbiased. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what you're missing here is that the list suffers from WP:PROFRINGE. There is a "KEEP!KEEP!KEEP!" !vote below that may indicate that. In that way, this situation is different from the ones you are comparing it to. jps (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deniers (cranks or otherwise) often claim there are "LOTS of scientists who disagree", but rarely show the details. We present this list not to support the claim, but to show how deficient those details are. To borrow an earlier comment: this is not so much a lousy list, as it is a list showing how lousy is this claim of "LOTs of scientists...." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's because of where you're hanging out, or what, but as much as I appreciate your aim of hoping to show people how deficient certain details are in faulty arguments, Wikipedia is WP:NOT meant to be used for that purpose. Such work is entirely original research of the synthetic kind. It has always been as such and I have yet to see any argument for why this is not the case. I would heartily endorse you keeping such a list at your own private website. If it became notable enough, maybe we could write a Wikipedia article on it. But Wikipedia is not the place to make such a list. jps (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AFD (the list can be improved to address the above concerns) and WP:CLN: almost all of these scientists are listed in Category:Climate change skepticism and denial and a list is actually superior to the categorization since sourcing requirements can be more easily enforced. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt The list is synthesis to mislead the reader into thinking there is significant doubt about the reality of global warming. For an example of the FUD, consider what our articles claim for two entries: Garth Paltridge "believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat"; Harrison Schmitt thinks "climate change is a tool for people who are trying to increase the size of government". An article on the topic should discuss WP:DUE views, but this list is original research reflecting nothing more than it is always possible to find a hundred doubters in a planet of seven billion people. Johnuniq (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? "Any utility it ever had is long past?" It's a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion. 1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report's three main conclusions, and 3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! Stop throwing up buzz words like "denialist" and "consensus" which provide you with an unjustified view from your perceived moral high ground. Pick a person or persons you don't think should be included, actually apply the four criteria and make an argument that they do or do not belong on the list! As for me, I've been an editor of this page for a little over a year. By my count, I've successfully added seven scientists to the list (I'll soon be recommending an 8th). . . and I've shown my work every time, and those seven met the criteria. And as to relevance . . . the last IPCC report, IPCC 5, seems to have cut its projected warming over the next two decades in half (see IPCC 5 Figure 11.25). And actual observed warming is in the bottom 2.5 percent of the IPCC 3 models' range. My god, this page is more relevant than ever.Kolg8 (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC) — Kolg8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY! That says it all, doesn't it? Wikipedia is meant to be intellectually lazy. jps (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kolg8 has inadvertently helpfully demonstrated that this article is indeed being used to serve an agenda. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree Kolg8 read the many comments made by the delete !voters and (summarizing the comments) came to the conclusion that many want this deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT or I do not agree with it. There are now 9 attempts to scrub these contrary opinions which Kolg8 has pointed out, meet WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with Kolg8 and Lightburst on this. The topic is notable and the article has been well cited. I am against Wikipedia becoming a social bubble. Reliability is a core aim in the very first line of WP:POLICY. The Fringe Theory noticeboard people harm the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopaedia when they delete notable I don't like stuff rather than just ensuring it is written and cited it in a neutral fashion. Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Kolg8 is a bit of an WP:SPA. 90% of their edits are edits to or comments about this list. (All but one of the remainder are to Peter Ridd, who is a candidate for the list.) ApLundell (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ApLundell, what you say is true. 90% of my edits are to this article. Now . . . any chance you want to address the points I made above? For the record, questioning someone's motives while ignoring their argument is another example of intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your cherry-picking of IPCC esoterica is irrelevant to the question of whether this article should exist or not. Finding scientists, many of them in fields that are not climate science, who meet an arbitrary criterion is WP:SYNTH. jps correctly identified a problem with your argument that has nothing to do with your editing record. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of arbitrary criteria, why does this page use IPCC3 as the sole representation of scientific consensus on climate change, such that disagreement with it is the criterion for inclusion on this page, rather than IPCC4 or IPCC5? Kolg8 says that the differences of IPCC5 with IPCC3 show this page is more relevant than ever. I say that the fact that there is an IPCC5 report means that maintaining a listing of those deemed to have once disagreed with IPCC3 is of less relevance than it ever was. At a minimum, shouldn't it be "List of scientists who disagreed with the 2001 scientific consensus on global warming"? Agricolae (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae, yes, that too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely one of the complaints I have about this list: statements of denial (or merely points of criticism) are strongly time-dependent (AR-dependent) as the evidence for GW/CC matured, so they really should be dated. But that is about improving the article, not a reason for deleting it. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After the last rounds of no consensus for deletion, I tried for years (go ahead, sift through the archives) in good faith to try to fix the problems with this list to no avail. I have come to the conclusion it is unfixable. The design of the list is intentionally to abrogate many of the most straightforward rules of this website. jps (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The !votes above to "salt" are concerning because WP:SALT is intended for articles that have been deleted and then repeatedly recreated. In this case the opposite is true so far as I can see – the article has never been deleted but has been repeatedly kept, either through consensus or lack of it. Those here !voting "salt" may unintentionally have given the impression they have not given thought to protection policy. Thincat (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SALT is not "intended" for that, but of course is useful for that. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the "salty" votes may be doing something like asking for a moratorium on recreation out of fear that we have to keep revisiting this question.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs)

  Salting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming (2nd nomination) might be an alternative approach! Thincat (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SALT actually says This is useful for bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated. It's useful for that, but not limited to that. I'd say it could be used here for an article that, if deleted, is at high risk of re-creation. But regardless, even if this were not the correct use of SALT, the delete vote portion and their reasoning is still valid. -Crossroads- (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• High risk for exposing readers to a view you disagree with? That is silly and not the purpose of salt. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But is there any real reason to think it's at high risk of re-creation? People keep bringing up the 7 previous AFDs, but it's not like it was deleted and then recreated several times. We've never achieved consensus to delete. Actually it was only the 6th and 7th where there was no consensus, prior to that it was keep. (It seems from the 4th nomination to the last, we've been at no consensus, prior to that it was keep.) If anything, the 7 previous AfDs just proves there's a lot of attention and so any attempt at recreation will quickly fail unless it goes through deletion review. Further, as the previous AfDs show, this is now the 3rd title. Frankly you could easily come up with many more. So it's questionable if salt will actually significantly harm attempts at recreation. IMO the counter argument that the previous AfDs demonstrate that we need to stop AfDing this article is more reasonable. Although since the previous 2 4 were no consensus after a bunch few of keeps and it has also been a long while now, it's IMO a reasonable AfD and it's quite likely the consensus will be respected. Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - Even ten years ago it was clear to me and others that this article had become a badly written nexus of non-notable fringe theories and advocacy for religious points of view. Ten years on, a dozen scientists formerly denying climate change have died. Outside of another dozen die-hards in the United States, virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world. As a scientific community, we also have much more information and data, and the consensus has gotten stronger (close to 99.9 % of scientists agree) as the obituary pages continue to publish the memorials to those who disagree with scientific consensus. Everyone has moved on with their lives. In the meanwhile, I've earned a master's of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don't believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but absolutely nobody -- not teachers, not students, not scholars -- seriously denies climate change any more. A list that purports to list the dozen or so people who still deny it to their grave is shrinking each day, and is an example of fraudulently spreading doubt and uncertainty, as noted by Johnuniq. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, ether, and astronomy. Sure there are a handful of believers in this, Area 51, cold fusion, Occultism in Nazism, AIDS denialism, and the Age of Aquarius, but it's so few that to list them in an article is to give extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop - a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called "fringe theories advanced for religious purposes," shall we?

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;

Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;

Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);

Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;

Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;

Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;

Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

I mean, all you needed to do was click on the article and skim through it. But instead, you push the narrative that they're all quacks. By the way, if you feel comfortable dismissing them out of hand, how many Nobel Prizes have you won? Kolg8 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the list spreads FUD with the UNDUE idea that it is a big deal that there are a small number of reputable scientists who have expressed doubts about global warming. What reliable secondary source says that the views of some contrarians exposes significant doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change? Articles should not mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize — I think you mean Ivar Giaever, who won the physics prize, and who is dead, and when he was alive was trivially wrong. (And I may or may not have a Nobel Prize in my back pocket, but Brian Schmidt certainly does. What does he have to say on the subject? Gee, I wonder.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my apologies to Dr. Giaever, first for misspelling his name, and second for stating that he won the Nobel Peace Price when it was actually the Nobel Prize for Physics (which is more relevant to the issues at hand, it would seem). For what it's worth, you may owe him a bigger apology. According to the wikipedia page you cite, he's not dead yet. Kolg8 (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Johnuniq, after I cited 9 exceptional scientists, you concede their status but argue that the article improperly infers "significant doubt[s]" due to the opinions of only a few reputable scientists. You shouldn't forget that one of the requirements for inclusion in the list is that the scientist has their own wikipedia page to establish notability. There are many reputable scientists that do not have a wikipedia page. To illustrate, I went to MIT's website, to the page on the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (Lindzen's department). I searched for the first 10 (alphabetically) on google, and could only find a wikipedia page for 3. Would we say those only those three are "reputable?" No, if your professor at MIT, you're a scientific rock star, wikipedia page or no wikipedia page. Kolg8 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (came here from ARS) This is a clear NPOV nightmare, since the only places outside of Wikipedia that such "lists of scientists" are maintained is advocacy groups pushing an anti-science agenda. I note that Wikipedia includes an article on the loosely-related Project Steve (for "scientists named Steve" who agree with the scientific consensus on evolution, which is not entirely unrelated to this topic), but we don't actually quote the list on that article. Since I see this popping up from time to time, I should also point out in anticipation of someone mentioning it that the fact of this being the 7th nomination is fairly immaterial, since the most recent nomination was almost six years ago and the last "keep" consensus was over eight years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list is notable and well-sourced. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt I can see no conceivable reason why such a list should exist. We don't need to have lists of people who agree or disagree with every particular controversial thing. This feels very WP:POINT-y as an article, and I'm flummoxed as to how it survived through this many prior AFDs. Delete it, kill it with fire, and burn the ashes again for good measure. --Jayron32 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per WP:LISTN and WP:PROFRINGE; the only possible justification for WP:LISTN (ie. that some fringe advocacy groups use such lists to advance their position) violates WP:PROFRINGE, since those lists aren't treated seriously by any mainstream source. The sourcing is terrible and suffers from WP:BIASED issues, which is a problem in a list because their criteria has to be clear and uncontroversial. More generally, we don't have comparable nose-counting lists on other scientific theories, so it's hard to see what the purpose of this list would be except to promote a WP:FRINGE position. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (saw at ARS) One can find lists like this in non-partisan and non-biased sources. Example. We can present the nuances of what the scientists actually believe (it's not so black and white as "I believe/Don't believe" there are gradients) would not be possible in a category. Possibly the list could be reworked into prose form with more details and sections like in the "Example" link. -- GreenC 19:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list linked here appears to be a copy of this Wikipedia page. The author didn't even bother to change the citation links. Nblund ^talk 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the fact this cranky blog has got editors here thinkings it is a "non-partisan and non-biased source" is probably further reason why this article should be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. But, a list of deniers and some sort of categorization of their positions is within what Wikipedia already does. We have an article describing denier positions, and articles about deniers that describe their positions, putting the two together is not odious. If anything it is an opportunity since notable Fringe topics require a non-Fringe perspective. -- GreenC 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

putting the two together is not odious -- but it is WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review for a rigourous discussion of the complications and problems in defining and applying labels to opionions. "Despite recognizing that categories are a ‘fundamental device by which all members of any society constitute their social order’,¹¹⁵ we suggest that each attempt to label climate opinions produced thus far has been unable to accurately portray the complexity that exists, resulting in a mixture of labels which are used interchangeably and confusingly in academia, policy,the media, and across other networks." This list suffers from many of the criticisms described there. --mikeu ^talk 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC and I have disagreed a lot in the last two years, but (thanks in part to my having seen him engage in serious critical analysis of sources back in 2012) I never questioned his competence as an editor until I saw the above claim that electroverse.net is a "non-partisan and non-biased source". Not only is the page itself clearly partisan in its rhetoric, but the whole point of the website is pushing the view that climate is actually getting colder, not warmer -- just skim all their titles going back to July like I just did to see what I mean. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right on closer inspection I should strike that source. is actually what I said. Apparantly you, too, can make a mistake. -- GreenC 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long history of making mistakes, admitting to them, and either moving on or actually doing the heavy lifting to clean up whatever damage may have been caused, most recently four days ago. It is only editors trying to push an agenda who insist that I am never willing to admit that I am wrong. (I recall back in 2015 a number of editors repeatedly insisted that I had been proven wrong on Talk:Kenji Miyazawa and related discussions but that I refused to admit it because I have some psychopathic obsession with my own intellectual perfection and never making a single mistake.) That being said, I don't think it's a mistake in this case to read your initial, still-unstricken !vote, which was based on there supposedly being in existence impartial sources that agree with Wikipedia's article on this point, which still now is reliant on the blog in question, and not to reinterpret it in light of something you said you should have done later. You wrote the above well over two days ago, and still have neither carried out said striking of the source (and perhaps replacing it with I haven't been able to find any such sources, but I assume they are out there??) nor stricken your !vote itself which was based on the said source. I can understand that you have now changed your position to the (IMO weaker) one that since we have articles on climate change deniers it is maybe within our scope to have a list of them, but it still clouds the discussion to do so as you have done; if it were me (and if you really want an example I'll dig one up for you, but elsewhere, on my own time) I would strike all but the word "keep" and add "See revised rationale below." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim: At a minimum, this list should be limited exclusively to climate scientists, or those who have make a significant contribution to the field of climate science. Otherwise it's just an opinion poll among scientists from assorted fields who don't necessarily possess any expertise on the climate. For example, you don't typically query biologists about their opinion on theories of cosmic inflation because it's not in their field. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there was one well-known instance of the converse, where an astronomer was regularly quoted for his contrarian opinion on the authenticity of an early bird(ish) fossil, particularly by the Answers in Genesis crowd. But then that is exactly the point, isn't it? It is all rather POINTy (and pointless) to collect the opinions of those with no expertise. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With apologies to people who have been conned into believing that the WP climate area is sound ... Who are we kidding here? This is an important, long standing article that gives a tiny sliver of balance to grotesquely POV, essentially permanently vandalized, articles on Climate -- too many to list, but this gives an idea of the breathtaking scope: Was Four Legs good, Two legs bad -- Consensus is a suspect argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_consensus&diff=2119801&oldid=2113861), changed to Four Legs good, Two legs better -- Consensus is something of a gold standard and the Catastrophic Climate Change narrative stands on a par with "the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science." [Montague apropos of Evolution] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus). The first person making that flip was described as "The Climate Doctor" in Canada's National Post [copy here: https://www.thegwpf.com/lawrence-solomon-wikipedias-climate-doctor/] There is relentless pressure on anything that could conceivably touch on the CAGW narrative to make the picture conform to the strong opinions of people wedded body and soul to the quasi-religious CAGW narrative. Maybe people voting to delete are 'deletionists' and are honestly trying to improve things, but deleting this particular article would be wrong on its face and akin to vandalism. It does not matter how many or what percentage of people are willing to do something wrong. It does not make it right. Consensus on deletion should not be able to override the extreme value of this article. AFAIK, it is the only page on Wikipedia out of the thousands of pages touching on climate that brings some tiny bit of balance to the Catastrophic Climate Narrative and its accompanying mean spirited culture of name-calling, reputation smearing, and censoring anybody who dares to speak against the Religious Catastrophic Climate Change Orthodoxy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepNorth (talk • contribs) 01:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably didn't intend it this way, but what you are arguing for, 'there has to be a page that gives a different viewpoint than all of the other pages on the topic', is pretty much the exact description of a POV WP:CONTENTFORK, and "[a]ll POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia,. . . ." Nonetheless, this list isn't up for deletion because of the topic, per se. It is unencyclopedic because it is taking a diverse group of scientists with a range of expertise and a plethora of individual positions and lumping them into arbitrary and artificial editor-defined categories that do not do justice to their nuanced views, and is failing to take the dynamic nature of scientific conclusions into account by using dated quotes and comparing them to a document written almost 20 years ago under the guise of reflecting the current scientific consensus. 'Fix the page, don't delete it' some would say, but it is virtually impossible to present the material this diverse in a manner that is not inherently arbitrary, misleading and pointy. Agricolae (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • • First, what is a "dynamic nature of scientific conclusion?" Don't get me wrong: those are excellent buzz words. But "dynamic" is defined as "characterized by constant change, activity or progress." Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. We figured out some time ago that the speed of acceleration due to gravity near the earth's surface is 9.8 m/s. We can design a test, and if properly performed, we will again confirm that rate of acceleration, and objects will continue to accelerate a 9.8 m/s in the future. It will not change no matter how much you want it to, and no matter how large the consensus is that the real rate is 7 m/s. And that's why it is useful for this article to pin down exactly what is meant by "Climate Change," f/k/a "Global Warming," by citing the three main tenants of IPCC 3. That study's conclusions, specifically that the earth may warm by as much as 5.8 degrees celsius over the next century, are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping).
    • Second, these continued red herrings, that a webpage providing a different viewpoint violates a wikipedia policy on neutrality, just need to stop. It's silly. There is a wikipedia page on the Republican Party. There is one on the Democratic Party. Because Republicans and Democrats each have viewpoints, does that mean the pages can't exist? Obviously not. The policy on neutrality means that editors of the page cannot add statements like "Republican policies are designed to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor," and "Democrats have a history of creating expensive social programs that are ineffective and put a strain on the economy."Kolg8 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions about what the science is may change, but real scientific conclusion does not change. One of the core aspects of the scientific method is that all conclusions are provisional, subject to reevaluation as new data come to light. Such novel findings often provide no change of thought, but can result in everything from minor tweaks to Saul-to-Paul shifts in perspective. That is exactly why comparing a one-time statement from 15 years ago to a 20-year old document that has been rendered obsolete by two subsequent such documents provides little value. It is comparing what a scientist once thought to what used to be the consensus.

WP:CONTENTFORK and its statements on POV are policy, not a red herring. If there are multiple noteworthy viewpoints they are to be represented across the articles on a subject, not in a ghetto or walled garden, nor do we collect lists of people who themselves have a range of different views as a catchall for the one thing they have in common, that they have said something critical of a 20-year-old report we don't like, because we personally feel the data . . . are being used to convince policy makers that there is a moral imperative to drastically change our economies. If we're going to take such action, I want something to be tested and scrutinized (not just a lot of arm waiving and table thumping). One's personal predilections about global climate policy are not really relevant to whether this page conforms with Wikipedia policy on lists. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I see no reason to support science deniers, but whether it supports your views or not or makes you happy or sad is not a reason for keeping or deleting. The notability criteria are cited and it follows the policies and provides reliable information to people visiting Wikipedia and that's quite enough for my keep !vote without all the waffle and digression. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolate, I would be delighted if the scientific method could somehow work its way into the Climate Change debate. From my point of view, a theory based on proxy data and unproven assumptions to make temperature projections that can't be tested for 110 years is in desperate need of the scientific method. But for the record, there's another word for a "provisional conclusion." It's called a hypothesis. And a hypothesis isn't a fact, even if there is a supposed consensus believing in it, unless and until it is proven. Kolg8 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All conclusions in science are provisional in this manner, and nothing can be proven to the point that it is not subject to future revision. Thus, as you define it, there are no facts. Well done. Again, how does this expedition into the philosophy of reality bear on Wikipedia's policies regarding lists? It seems like your rationale is more a demand for a WP:SOAPBOX than an argument for the soundness of this particular list. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. But more to the point, this discussion is NOT about any theories, hypotheses, or unequivocal truths, it is about whether this list should be kept, or deleted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A big thank you to each and every scientist who has stood up against the chicken-little climate alarmist rubbish. The way we are going, when the world economy has been shut down without making an once of difference to the climate, people will say of Wikipedia, why did they not publish anyone prepared to stand up against this. 103.14.71.235 (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) — 103.14.71.235 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

103.14.71.235's little rant contributes so little to this discussion I am in favor of striking it, even at the loss of a "Keep". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - or we have to add people like the IP above me to the list if they happen to have a random publication somewhere, making them technically scientists? The scope of the article is too vague. There are clearly some people where it is notable that they disagree with nearly everyone else, but for most of the people in the list this is not true. --mfb (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It is an interesting topic and contains interesting information., does not deserve to be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's interesting. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alexbrn: Wasn't your own !vote comment was based off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:LIKELYVIOLATION? If you want Alex-h to follow up with additional information to back up their arguement, just do so. Per WP:ATA, ... it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay. As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am concerned with WP:NOT and WP:BLP which are fundamental policies. Just pointing an policy in a contribution is bad; but there's nothing wrong in pointing out that somebody else's contribution is worthless (as many of the !keep votes here are). Alexbrn (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, The article is well sourced, per WP:V, and clearly passes WP:LISTN and the scientists are notable, each having their own Wikipedia page. I take note of the delete arguments that some of these experts are of scientific disciplines that are on the outskirts or edges of climate science, fine then add sources stating that, per WP:NPOV. As per these scientists being a small, even fringe, minority of scientists, they are still a notable prominent fringe minority and the article clearly states, even with a convincing graph, that these scientists are a very small minority. Science progresses with minority opinions criticising majority opinion as it usually helps the majority opinion strengthen and refine their opinion whilst refuting the minority opinion. I can see no benefit in deleting minority opinion, rather as an encyclopedia we should be educating our readers by saying, in an encyclopedic sourced tone, here is the minority opinion and notable people who support it and here is the reason they are wrong, per the majority scientific opinion instead of just delete, delete, delete, suppress, suppress, suppress, hide, hide, hide, pushing editors towards fringe POV poor quality websites instead. From reading the list, as a lay person with limited knowledge of climate science, I come away with the view that these scientists are a very small minority and on available evidence are highly likely to be incorrect in their opinions, but I still believe the list has encyclopedic value. I fear deletion of this article advances the outside opinion that Wikipedia is prone to biased editing and deletion decisions due largely to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Finally, as per the top right of this page, there have been 7 previous deletion discussions re. this article, 4 of which resulted in ‘keep’ and 3 of which resulted in ‘no consensus’. It seems like we are voting again and again until we eventually vote the ‘right way’ and get the delete result. To me there needs to be an overwhelming delete consensus if we are to overrule or set aside 7 previous deletion discussions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see no benefit in deleting minority opinion, rather as an encyclopedia we should be educating our readers by saying, in an encyclopedic sourced tone, here is the minority opinion and notable people who support it and here is the reason they are wrong — except that this list is a terrible way of presenting "the" minority opinion, because it violates policy to combine multiple different minority opinions according to a standard that was invented for this page. We can explain climate-science denial much better without this list than with it. And as for overriding "7 previous deletion discussions", the last one was six years ago and explicitly left room for the debate to be reopened if the list did not improve — which, spoilers, it didn't. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability, see WP:LISTN. The big difference is that Wikipedia requires the scientists be notable as in Wikipedia. Plus cites are given to sources saying they disagree and what they have said. So they are not inflated by people saying they are scientists but never having used their university degree or even worse by names of people who don't disagree or Micky Mouse names. Dmcq (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The selection criteria follow those of the sources that provide notability — no, they don't. The bullet-point criteria for being included in this list are not those used by the references on which the list nominally relies. They are also rigged to make the list as big as possible, by putting equal emphasis on disputing details of projections as on the fundamental facts. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for so many reasons already explored in great detail above, but not least because many scientists are open to a change of mine , and many do change their minds, and this is never going to keep up. Some scientists agree with the principle hypothoses but disagree about the predicted outcomes or probabilities, othere diagree with the central hypothesis but agree that there are anthropogenic impacts on the climate. How could such a lsit reflect such variabilities? As a list it is indicriminate, partial and is generated by WP:SYNTH.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "How could such a list reflect such variabilities?" By listing four specific reasons that a scientist could disagree with IPCC 3, and then listing each scientist under one of those four headings. That's how.Kolg8 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking about that a scientist might change their mind. And of course one might just at this moment you read this, or the next person reads this. The scientists on the list in general seem very happy to have their views expounded, there's no real BLP problem. And they don't actually seem to change their minds much as far as disagreeing with the consensus is concerned - but quite often they change the grounds they do it on. And if they do change their minds they make this obvious too and generally there's enough people interested in the topic to take note. This can however be a problem in some other articles where the topic starts fading in current notability. Dmcq (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This page is inherently POV and essentially an "attack page". How about making a page List of scientists who are idiots? That would be a very long list. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For this thought exercise, I imagine such a page would include, along with those actual having poor cognitive ability, also those who demonstrate occasional lapses of common sense, those who are well-educated but have critical gaps in their knowledge, who demonstrate early symptoms of age-related dementia, too ossified in their ideas to keep up with the current data, too arrogant to admit they might ever be wrong, intelligent but lacking in critical reasoning, or who simply feel a need to demonstrate their independent thought by denying some general consensus, or simply, who just 'play the fool' for attention. In other words, the same problem as with the list under discussion, a false-grouping of diverse people generated to make a point. Agricolae (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest before starting on a list of idiot scientists you try and find sources for notability of the list? Have there been notable lists of them? Are the lists talked about in reliable sources? If you can show good notability then I would support the creation of such a list. Also perhaps you can start something on the NPOV talk page about things that are 'inherently' POV and therefore should not be allowed on Wikipedia as currently I see nothing there about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your thought exercise, would Barry Marshall [^[1]] have been included in the list of idiot scientists? Here's what was said about him before he became a Nobel Laureate.

"His work was unconventional, not to say heretical, and in 1986, he was invited to discuss it at a gastroenterology conference in the United States. His wife came along and, while doing some sightseeing, overheard a conversation among some other gastroenterologists’ wives who happened to be sitting in front of her on a bus. “They were talking about this terrible person that they imported from Australia to speak,” Marshall told me. “You know: ‘How could they put such rubbish in the conference?’"^[2] unsigned comment added by Kolg8 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If such a list was notable with multiple reliable sources supporting WP:LISTN and people described him as a crackpot in reliable sources and he espoused views that he acknowledged were crackpot by the mainstream then at the time I would certainly support his inclusion. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it follows reliable sources - it does not lead. However being a crackpot does not ensure you are right - there's an awfully large number of scientists who were acknowled to be right in a timely fashion comppared to those who were for years thought to be crackpots. In fact I wonder if there are notable sources for a list of scientists who were thought to be crackpots but later vindicated. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes WP:CLUE cannot be legislated. This list is as inherently POV (and for similar reasons) as a List of Jewish murderers would be (in fact ISTR we had trouble with attempts to create lists like that a while ago). Alexbrn (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was there notable lists of jewish murderers being talked about in multiple reliable sources? If so I woud have thought there would be some thought put into the policies for dealing with a problem like that and I'd like to see how the problem was resolved. If the arguments there were relevant to this then fine, use them. If not then this is heading towards Reductio ad Hitlerum. Dmcq (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Some searching later) Aha - it was in fact List of convicted Jewish criminals. It was deleted and salted for potential BLP problems and as a "POV magnet". The case parallels this one! Alexbrn (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current List of Jewish American mobsters. It seems well cited for notability. Do you think an AfD should be raised on it? I shall try and find the reasons given for the deletion of the list you gave. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems List of convicted Jewish criminals had no notability and was pure OR so not really relevant here. The main reason for delete was that it was WP:Attack page, which doesn't apply here as the people concerned are happy to be identified with their views. Dmcq (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, List of Wikipedians who are idiots is easier to compile. "Scientist" typically requires an academic degree. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the topic have notability in reliable sources? See WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Criteria are too unclear and dynamic. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per most people above. I haven't looked at the history here to see whether the broad categories of reasons for disagreement are new, but even if they are they are still overbroad (and most likely original research in many instances), there is no requirement for a person included on this list to be speaking from a posistion of knowledge or to be speaking in reliable sources. I would not have a problem with a list based on reliable sources that explains any neuance, notes any conflicts of interest, excludes (or presents separaetly) those whose arguments have been fully debunked and notes points of agreement with consensus as well as points of disagreement. This list has none of those features. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Xoreaster and Drmies already explained this better than I could. This list jumbles together groups of people as diverse as contrarians-for-the-sake-of-it, paid coal industry shills, emeriti in another field who think they can make unsubstantiated pronouncements in this one, scientists who broadly accept the reality of climate science but have quibbles about one study or another, and perhaps even a handful who genuinely dispute the reality of climate science. BLP nightmare written to promote a biased POV. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are too many agendas distorting the science. Unfortunately there are people who don't want us to know that so many scientists do not buy into global warming alarmism. Global warming alarmists want us to believe that they have an almost universal consensus of scientists behind them. We must not let them hide reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.148.16 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) — 207.38.148.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And if anybody was still in any doubt that this page is a POV-Magnet, this contribution says much ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article starts by saying that 97-98% of climate scientists agree with the consensus. If that is so, it does not seem unreasonable that there should be a list of the 2-3% who do not. It is a fact, whether you agree or not, that some people think dissent from the consensus is suppressed. If this article is deleted, that will only fuel those views. It does not seem harmful to me, or against the spirit of Wikipedia to show such a list. What would surely be wrong would be to delete the list because those listed are somehow not approved of. If it's a fact that they disagree with the consensus, that's good enough for me that the fact should be reported. I would support it being restricted to climate scientists though. That seems relevant. Phil McGrove 17:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this listicle is deleted, the denialists will doubtless cry "conspiracy!". If it is kept, they will cry "we triumped over the conspiracy!". We aren't obliged to care either way. The problem is not that the people on the list said something "not approved of"; it's that the construction of the list violates policy. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt 7 Deletion noms?? This is absurd. This article fails WP:BLP in maligning its subjects, and presents a WP:FRINGE view with WP:UNDUE weight. There is no article for scientists who support climate change, because that list would be absolutely enormous. The fact that we have a list for those that don't? Undue. The inclusion criteria are very loose, and I see no feasible way to clean them up. Legitimate scientists are being bunched in with absolute nutters, which makes the real scientists look worse, and the nutters look better. BLP fiasco. Also, this thread is attracting POV keep votes that show that this article exists for the singular purpose of allowing climate change deniers to say "Look! Even Wikipedia knows that not all scientist agree!" Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might feel maligned if the description was applied to you but there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the scientists in the list feel maligned - quite he opposite. The list criteria are based on the citations in references 13,14 and 15 of the list, these provide the notabiity to satisfy WP:LISTN, and they say scientists and allow scientists besides climate scientists. Which is exactly what is also done for scientific institutes in Scientific consensus on climate change and I beieve quite rightly too. As to you beliefs about the effects of this article in the wider world, that is irrelevant to Wikipedia but personally I think you are wrong and I also think deleting notable topics on that basis damages Wikipedia's reputation for reliable unbiased information. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: references 13, 14, and 15 are: James Inhofe's Senate list, the Oregon Petition, and the Heartland Institute list. All three are produced by outfits with a clear vested interest in pushing climate denial with an established record of bullshit. None of them could plausibly be considered reliable sources for the purposes of WP:LISTN. Grouping zoologists and botanists alongside serious climate scientists makes no sense for anyone with any actual interest in understanding climate science. Nblund ^talk 01:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable bullshit as they are discussed in multiple reliable sources and so satisfy WP:LISTN. Dmcq (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not confer reliability on bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Reliable sources can describe bullshit and make a topic notable. Trump and Putin and many other politicians bullshit all the time, that doesn't make what they say an unfit subject for Wikipedia - multiple reliable sources discuss what they say. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how we keep hearing about these "reliable sources" that consider such a list as this, but nobody has actually been able to produce one (though instead we have been given some glimpses into some murky corners of the climate denial crankosphere). Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only have to go to the next sentence to see three reference to reliable sources talking about them. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The reliable source count is zero. You can point to none. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Source count is greater than zero. Proof by demonstration: 500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia (except for one maybe attesting to the existence of the Heartland Institute)? jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better policy based reason than 'Nope' is needed for dismissing the references 16,17 and 18 - [2], [3], and [4]. Why exactly are they not reliable sources talking about the lists? Dmcq (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're waving at sources. But, checking them, there is zero RS that discussed lists such this article makes. You cannot provide even one. If I'm wrong you may easily disprove it by providing your very best source. Just one. I won't hold my breath ...Alexbrn (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The provide the basis for notability as described in WP:LISTN, they make the topic notable. As it says there

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

The reliable sources discuss lists of scientists who disagree with the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying the word reliable to the wrong things. Actually, I'm not. That very notable bullshit is very notable does not mean it ceases to be bullshit. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use reliable in that way when WP:Reliable sources is what could be relevant here. If by not reliable you mean it comes under WP:FRINGE, fine I agree with that, - but that guideline does not say that being fringe is a reason for deletion. In fact it says "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I shouldn't refer to reliability because a policy on reliability might apply - I thought that was why I was referring to reliability. And I don't know where the 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' strawman is coming from, but it isn't helpful. A bad source is a bad source, a bad list is a bad list - they are related but independent conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources in the list ahowing notability are references 16,17 and 18 listed above which discuss the lists in references 13, 14 and 15. I don't know why you stuck 'suppressing fringe on Wikipedia' in, it doesn't occur anywhere in the AfD. Perhaps you misread the quote from WP:FRINGE? I put in the WP:FRINGE bit as I thought you were using bullshit and not reliable as synonyms - not that you hadn't read the next sentence in the artice or what's above. Dmcq (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a disconnect here between people who think denialist literature can be used as a justification for this list and those who think that's outrageous (I'm in the latter camp). What I fail to understand is the arguments of the most vociferous who seem to argue out of both sides of their mouth: (1) that the existence of denialist "lists" confers notability on this Wikipedia list and (2) we can do better by using other sources other than these lists. I find this argument dizzying and it is the basis for my claim that the list is WP:OR. That's, I believe, the main problem I have with the keep rationale. jps (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The justification is all the reliable sources talking about the lists, that is what makes such a list a notable topic. Please read the first paragraph at WP:LISTN. The criteria should be based on the lists but the lists themselves do not dictate the contents of a list article on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the problem, however. If a source talks about lists but then we change the content of the list, the source is no longer talking about the list. Ship of Theseus notwithstanding. jps (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ^[1] NationalLitchfield (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't a reliable source, and pointing to it isn't an argument. XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to exist promote fringe POV, combines multiple aspects of disagreement with consensus, and as a result encourages inclusion of people who may agree with most of the consensus. Peter James (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete any list with this title and scope will inherently give undue weight to the fringe theory of climate change denial, because it will largely consist of a long list of people who support that fringe theory, giving the impression that it's a widely held view. A paragraph or two at the top of the page pointing out that they represent a tiny minority cannot hope to counterbalance this. It is also lumping together people with wildly disparate views, from people diagreeing with the IPCC assessment (including those who think it is too optimistic) to those who don't think global warming is happening or who don't think it's anthropogenic. Hut 8.5 17:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry. I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it. Nevertheless, something just occurred to me which is worth mentioning. There have been a lot of arguments that the article's flaw is that it combines multiple reasons that scientists disagree with the consensus, and that somehow this is a problem ("wildly disparate views," see above). I'm not sure that it is a problem, but if it is, I think it can be shown that every scientist on the page disagrees with the third conclusion of the IPCC 3. So if we need a unifying reason to group them all together, I would think that provides it. Let me explain.
  • The three main tenents of IPCC 3, paraphrased, are:
    • 1) The global temperature has warmed since the late 1800s;
    • 2) At least a portion of this warming (the last 50 years) is caused by increased CO2; and
    • 3) The continued emission of CO2 will cause warming by as much as 5.8 C by 2100, which will be bad for the planet.
  • So, if a scientist disagrees with 1, and believes that it has not warmed in the last 50 years, it also means that they believe the increase in CO2 has not caused this warming, which means they also disagree with 2. And if they believe that increased CO2 has not caused warming, then they also believe that a continued increase of CO2 will not increase temperature 5.8 C by 2100, so they disagree with 3.
  • A scientist could agree with 1 (they believe it has warmed), but if they disagree with 2 (they believe the warming was not caused by CO2), then they would also disagree with 3 (more CO2 will not increase temperature by 5.8C by 2100).
  • Lastly, a scientist could agree with 1 (it has warmed) and 2 (the warming was caused by CO2), but disagree with 3 (it will not warm by 5.8C by 2100 because the models are wrong, or it could warm that much but it will be good for the planet).
  • So, regardless of which IPCC 3 conclusion a scientist disagrees with, they all disagree with the 3rd conclusion, that increased CO2 will increase temperature by as much as 5.8 C by 2100, and that this warming will be bad for the planet.
  • Now, perhaps the way the article displays their reason for disagreement with IPCC 3 is a little confusing, but it is really just a different way to say that each and every one of them disagrees IPCC 3 conclusion 3.
    • "Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections." That's disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes." That's disagreement with 2, and therefore, ultimate disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown." That's disagreement with 2, and therefore, ultimate disagreement with 3.
    • "Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences." That's disagreement with 3.
    • "Deceased Scientists." I don't know which conclusion these scientists disagreed with, but as long as they disagreed with one of them, they disagreed with the third. Kolg8 (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You'd be much better off trying to be a little less prolix. In general I think the longer the argument the further away from a policy based reason it is. The only only good reason for anything longer is explicit examples dempnstrating one's policy of guideline point. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll be less prolix (had to look that one up). Arguments that the opinions of the scientists on the page are too disparate to be included in a single article are wrong, because they all disagree with the third conclusion of IPCC 3. El Duderino . . . if you're not into the whole brevity thing. Kolg8 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Great, so we have List of scientists, many of whom lack relevant expertise, who have ever disagreed in some manner with the third tenet of a superseded almost-20-year-old report on climate change. Yeah, that's a worthy article. "I was really hoping that people would just stop commenting and we could keep the page, since its clear there is not a consensus to delete it." I know it is not a vote, but someone on the down-side of a 2-to-1 expressed preference against their desired outcome has every self-interested reason to declare it to be a clear draw. How about we leave it to the closer to decide where consensus lies. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a much better title for the article! Let's rename it, then rename it again every few years to stay current: "more than 20-year-old report", "almost 30-year-old report" and so on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list is what you get when you try to pretend that science is static, and decide that disagreement with some report remains noteworthy after that report is obsolete. My title simply accurately describes a list that is too specific to be notable, but is made to appear notable by pretending its selection criteria aren't disqualifyingly specific in some senses and disqualifyingly vague in others to serve as a proxy for opinion on the overarching issue. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see how this list could transcend being either a fringe promotion platform; a witch-hunting register; or an amorphous mess (possibly in combination with either of the other two). Some of the strenuous argumentation, including directly above, provides a good example of some backward motivations on display here. Some parties really want these people highlighted, and if that requires constructing a page-length argument structure just to define inclusion criteria that will capture the lot, then that's what they will bloody well attempt. This encyclopedia doesn't work like that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. or Draftify. Ohhh, dear. This is like... oof. Idk. Basically, my hot take on this list is pretty simple: a notable scientist who disagrees with the overwhelming consensus on climate change is decently interesting while a scientist who accepts the consensus is... well just like the rest of 'em. I disagree with how the list is formatted (it should be more patently obvious what it is these folks are saying and how and why most aren't qualified to say it), but that is more of a matter for clean up than anything.
  Honestly, this feels more like a WP:NOTCENSORED arguement, but I'll just say what's on my mind. It's probably going to be either (1) we publish this list and get to inject necessary context for who these people are or (2) climate deniers publish this sorta list and make it sound like there is this huge secret group of dissenters that The Left™ doesn't want you to know about. I think people ought to know that these climate denying scientists happen to include Keith E. Idso the botanist and David Deming the geologist.
  We need a better list, though. Maybe I'll clean this up later just for the fun of it. Were I to do so, I would probably use sources like these.^{[5][6][7][8][9]} My point is that there is a right way to do this, but this currently doesn't reflect that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If I wasn't clear enough already; my version of this list would be cut pretty heavily to only the living people who claim that climate change is not caused by man-made carbon emissions. I'd axe most of the list and only go by what is published in multiple WP:RS. The list's scope relies on primary sources, and I totally disagree with that. It should just be whatever reliable sources say about a person. If my bar to entry is too high where the list just has only five entries, then so be it.
  In case it wasn't obvious already, I disagree with most other people in the "Keep" column. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Restricting the list only living people is a bit of problem in that some of the most notable "skeptics" have died. This leads into a key distinction (which I don't recall having been made): is the intent to list current "skeptics"? Or take a more historical view? I think we should specify dates of stated "skepticism", most recent relevant statements, retirement, and death. Also which Assessment Review they disagree with, or was current when they disagreed. Sure, some folks here will wail about synthesis, but the additional information does not reach a conclusion not supported by any source, it simply adds more information so the reader can determine the currency of a person's views.

You're right, it should be a better list. Which is not attained by deletion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: The issue with including people have since passed away is that they aren't able to change their minds about the subject, and the science is always changing (just like not in the way "skeptics" say it). If this was merely a list that of people who don't accept the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report... well that is pretty static and uninteresting. It also would group up any hypothetical individuals who think the climate models used by IPCC weren't aggressive enough with the people who think it's a conspiracy invented by China. The only way this list works, to me, is with a strict inclusion criteria and a dynamic format.
Readers would be served as much background as we can provide to the extent a WP:RS reports it. Synthesis, based off my understanding, occurs not when we have Fact A from source A followed by Face B from source B; it occurs when we use sources A & B to make Fact C. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is article shows 2 side to a debate - and the list is very valuable - Wikipedia could be accused of bias and censorship on an issue of public debate if it removes this article Shambhallah (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Showing two side of a debate can be expressing against our guidance in fringe topics; "it's valuable" is not a legitimate reason to keep an article. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It fails a whole load of alphabet soup (so I won't link them), notably SYNTH, OR, NPOV and LISTN, not to mention anything else (UNDUE? FRINGE? An argument could be made for all of them). There are simply too many things wrong with it. I think Xoreaster and Bearian said it the best, although there are a lot of other well-argued Delete commentaries. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say "An argument could be made for all" of these points. But could you actually list the specific content which violates WP:OR? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Gish gallop to me. No actual argument except lots of WP:TLAs. It is supposed to be up to the people quoting one of those policies and guidelines to give a short explanation of its particular application, not for people to try and figure out the grounds for objection and then expect for some other pure TLA objection to come along for them to again puzzle over. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual laziness. Kolg8 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This list gives undue weight to a fringe perspective which is already covered at Climate change denial and seems designed to promote the "both sides" fallacy. If kept, the criteria would need to be adjusted to include only climate scientists. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dlthewave: I'd like to get your thoughts on this sandbox version I just made. I see a possible future where the list includes non-Climate scientists but with necessary context. The version I linked to needs a ton more prose added to it, but it should give you the picture of what I am going for. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no evidence of notability of your list. Can you point to reliable sources discussing lists of individuals against the Paris Climate Accord? See WP:LISTN. You need to start from sources which give the criteria and show the topic is notable before embarking on making a list like that in Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmcq: Are you serious? My version totally meets LISTN, and I don't appreciate being spoken down to like that. I included two different peer-reviewed studies in the Further reading section and the completed entries were sourced and verified from four separately reliable editorial outfits (of which two were primarily focused on the topic as a group). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sandbox version wholly inadequate. It includes only space for people that were in favor of pulling out of the Paris accord, which should include people wishing to do so for political reasons without considering the science. And it includes space for those disagreeing with the Hockey Stick graph, but there is already a far better article on that in Wikipedia. However, it fails to do what this article does: it provides space for notable scientists who believe they have a scientific basis to argue against the "climate change consensus." And the inconvenient truth is that there are 80 or so scientists, including Nobel Laureates, members of the National Academy of Sciences, professors at prestigious universities and actual authors of IPCC reports, who meet that criteria.Kolg8 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolg8: It's an early and incomplete draft article I made in less than an hour. It's rather incomplete, but even still my preferred method of organization is to subdivide the list based off individual actions taken by the scientists. I also don't think the list is as extensive as you make it out to be. My bar to entry is higher than most in that I am only interested in scientists who do not believe in the current consensus that man-made carbon emissions are the cause for climate change. You made a nice pun though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think Black Kite sums it up well. I don't see how this isn't an arbitrary snthesis, or what its notability is as a standalone list. I also agree that, given the multiple nominations, it should be salted as well. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination's claim that the topic doesn't pass WP:LISTN is blatantly false because entire books are written about these people – see below. The other claims are likewise false because the list has been extensively curated, debated and developed ever since it was first created. Its creator was not some wild-eyed denialist but was Robert Rohde who is a respectable scientist working in this field. Others who have supported the list in the past include William Connolley who is likewise an expert in the field. They seem to be away currently – perhaps they are burnt out or too busy to waste time on such repetitive and vexatious discussion. There are obviously sensible alternatives to deletion such as merger with climate change denial or environmental skepticism. This would be consistent with our policy WP:PRESERVE, facilitating further development and discussion as the years continue to pass and the outcomes become clearer. Deleting and salting the page would clearly be an act of censorship, trying to shut down further activity, contrary to WP:CCC. As this is a sensitive topic, subject to arbcom sanctions, we should not take intemperate action contrary to the evidence and our policies. Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Boykoff, Maxwell (2009). "Ch. 39: Carbonundrums: The Role of the Media: Contemporary Media Courtesans: Climate Contrarians". In Schneider, Stephen H.; Rosencranz, Armin; Mastrandrea, Michael D.; et al. (eds.). Climate change science and policy. Island Press. p. 401. ISBN 978-1-59726-567-6.
2. Fleming, James Rodger (2005). Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518973-5.
3. Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). "The Denial of Global Warming". Merchants of Doubt. Bloomsbury. pp. 169–215. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.
4. Solomon, Lawrence (2010). The Deniers. Richard Vigilante Books. ISBN 978-0-9800763-7-0.
5. Powell, James Lawrence (2011). "The Scientist Deniers". The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15718-6.
6. Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). "Ch. 10: Organized Climate Change Denial: 2.4 Contrarian Scientists". In Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosber, David (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 151. ISBN 978-0-19-956660-0.

• All of your argument would be a good rational for keeping the general article on the concept of climate change denial. It does not, however, present any rational for keeping around a random list of names of people who ascribe to it. --Jayron32 12:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is clearly not random. All the entries are notable people and their inclusion is backed up a clear rationale and sourcing which has been extensively detailed and debated by numerous editors – the talk page has 39 pages of archive. Consider, for example, the first entry – Garth Paltridge. He is a respectable scientist and has published a book specifically about climate change and the extent to which there is or isn't a credible consensus. Notice that his page is not in a relevant category and, even if it were, there would be no in-line citation supporting it as there's no facility for this. It's the category system which is semi-random, unverified junk. The list is fine. Andrew D. (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Original Research by Synthesis is not fine. And synthesis with heaps of talk-page text behind it is still synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing at policies without evidence or examples is just an empty assertion per WP:VAGUEWAVE. I've produced plenty of evidence above such as a stack of books from multiple university presses. These demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic. Any remaining issues are therefore just a matter of ordinary editing per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Showing a stack of books from multiple university presses may demonstrate that it is possible to write at length about the topic, but it doesn't at all imply that this actual list is in compliance with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. It's not that there are a few remaining issues, it's that the basic premise is flawed: gathering together a miscellany of individuals based on a criterion invented for the list itself is, at root, not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite, otherwise we'd be open to List of physicians who question vaccine safety, List of historians who question mainstream accounts of the Holocaust, etc. It's mind-blowing that this is the only "List of scientists ..." article that Wikipedia carries. Alexbrn (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Slippery slope is a logic fallacy, no one is proposing those. For list criteria, absolutely this is what we do as editors, every list has criteria for inclusion, often invented by Wikipedia editors for practical reasons, contrary to popular believe there is a great deal of editorial descision making on Wikipedia but that doesn't make it OR. The topic has to be supportable in reliable sources and this has been done in Andrew's sources which demonstrate reliable sources often list notable deniers. -- GreenC 15:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We do actually cover those other cases; you just have to get the title right. For example, see holocaust_denial#Post-World_War_II_history which lists plenty of notable people including Harry Elmer Barnes. And we have category:Holocaust deniers by nationality with numerous entries too. And, for the vaccine issue, we have category:Anti-vaccinationism which lists lots of anti-vaccine activists, media and organisations. Andrew D. (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly, and in this case we have Climate change denial. What we don't have is my imagined list articles based (like this) one ingeniously constructed sets of criteria which are peculiar only to the handful of Wikipedia editors presiding over the list. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Climate change skepticism and denial exists, which is sufficient as well; we don't need a stand alone article to duplicate the effort there. --Jayron32 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CLN explains that "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. Although they each have their own advantages and disadvantages, each method complements the others ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other ... the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists" In this case, because the material is sensitive, lists are better than categories because the entries can be explained, qualified and verified with in-line citations, as is done in this case. I can see no benefit in using categories exclusively and the nay-sayers do not provide any rationale for doing so. If you inspect the talk page for the equivalent category, you can see how poorly maintained it is. There's hardly any discussion and it seems to be quite half-baked. It appears that no effort has been put into the category while the list has had 761 editors since it was created 14 years ago and its talk page has had 711 editors too. The list is where all the effort has gone while the category has been comparatively neglected. Andrew D. (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You specifically brought up the category angle, not me. If you did not want to make it a focus of your defense of this article, you maybe should've not done that. Instead, what you should have done is probably nothing at all (advice I am going to take myself at the conclusion of this paragraph, and probably should have taken before I started writing it, but could not, because at my core I'm an asshole) because you've already made your point, and repeating the same arguments over and over again does not add to the consensus nor does it give the admins any help in interpreting the consensus of the discussion. --Jayron32 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This section of indents relates to my !vote and so it is appropriate for me to respond to points and challenges which are made to it. I have rebutted the objections made and so need to make it clear that my !vote stands. If one doesn't do this, I find that closers sometimes suppose that the objections are accepted – see here for a fresh example. So, let's be quite clear about the status of my !vote. I have presented good evidence and policy-based argument and have rebutted the various counter-arguments. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would never dream of attempting to get you to change it. --Jayron32 18:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well we still have List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes which just recently survived AfD. At least a scientist's views on some aspect of science seems to be connected to their career although it's true because of the complexity we haven't been able to limit this list to those who are actually commenting on their field of research. I question the claims like that made in the AfD that there is any real evidence of a connection between being a professional sportsperson and crime.

  Anyway, I think a more significant point is that AFAIK, this is one of the few areas where this sort of thing actually gets some degree of mainstream attention. Evolution is probably the only other. Maybe some anti-vaxxer has composed a list of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy, but I've never heard of it. Likewise for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS. Even something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal (for individual people) is not really something which IMO gets attention like this sort of list.

  By comparison, the Oregon Petition, Leipzig Declaration etc receive significant main stream attention. (As did A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism e.g. Project Steve.) Further from what I've seen, there is often a greater reluctance to be identified in that fashion for many of the other possible lists too compared to a willingness to be on a list like this. (Although it's true that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation] and similar stuff has failed at AfD.)

  Note that I'm explicitly not saying any of this is a reason to keep, in fact I've expressed no opinion and don't intend to. I'm simply saying that there could be reasons why this list has merit whereas most others don't. Also I do see a bunch of redirects like List of political parties in the United Kingdom opposed to austerity, List of scientific and medical advances opposed by religion, List of prominent living pacifists, List of people in Playboy 2000-Present, List of old television series that were returned to after years which make me wonder whether we really need to salt this article if it's deleted (as I've said before) or instead it might be better to recreate it as a redirect. Not that I'm saying any of these redirects should be kept.

  P.S. Interesting enough, we also have List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and List of Democrats who opposed the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign. Also Lists of former Guantanamo Bay detainees alleged to have returned to terrorism and um whatever News media phone hacking scandal reference lists is.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nusan Porter[edit]

Jack Nusan Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indications of how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. While that notability policy includes ...has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as a criteria, but I'm not convinced that an award from the American Sociological Association qualifies as such. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two awards, not one. And given that most of Porter's work is within the discipline of sociology, and that he works within US academia, who else would you expect to be making prestigious national awards, other than the American Sociological Association? 86.141.208.224 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with OP. François Robere (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many published reviews of his books on JSTOR (which I am working on collating and adding to the article) give him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and as founding editor of the Journal of the History of Sociology [10] [11] he very likely passes WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note - I'm fine with ending this early as SNOWKEEP (or "nomination withdrawn", if that's more appropriate, as the keep arguments have convinced me that there is sufficient evidence of notability here). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be withdrawn in its current state unless François Robere also changes his opinion, but snow is still possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it kosher to reach out to François Robere to see what he thinks about this? Omanlured (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not, as long as the notification is neutral, on the lines of "would you like to take another look now" rather than "please change your opinion". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced. I've had hard AfDs on scholars that have a much higher citation count, but the journal work probably qualifies, as David notes. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough, thanks for taking the circle back on this. I think this will probably end up being closed as 'keep' anyway due to the factors that you and David Eppstein noted. Omanlured (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF#C8 as demonstrated above by David Eppstein. TJMSmith (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the awards confer notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 17 November 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Kimura[edit]

Gary Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Associate professor, no sources to indicate how he meets WP:NACADEMIC. Presumably he's mentioned in the cited book about NTFS, but that alone would not suffice for WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails GNG and NACADEMIC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He's not just "mentioned" in the cited book; it describes his work in depth and gives some background biographical data as well. I'd !vote "keep" if there were another comparable source, but most of the Google Books previews are only in snippet form, so they're hard to evaluate. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Small GS cites for super high cited field; WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment He's not an associate professor, but an affiliate associate professor. It looks to me like "affiliate" should be read as "respected adjunct", which argues against WP:NPROF. The NTFS stuff looks interesting, and a Google books search indicates that Kimura is mentioned on 28 pages of the cited book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "affiliate" means "don't bother trying to apply WP:PROF one way or the other, since he works in industry and has a nominal connection to academia". XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see sources for his role in Windows OS design. Are they enough, or is that that his only claim to fame? I would tend to say they aren't enough and that the OS work is his only claim to fame. The professor position is a "courtesy" gig, similar to a visiting position. Departments give these out when they can get professionals form the field to come and teach. the position is for 12 months, is not tenure-track reviewed and carries no benefits. As it says here, " In 1999 Gary returned to the University as an affiliate professor teaching the operating system design classes." (Everyone working in the department is going to love that arrangement as they have someone who actually designed an operating system teaching the class, and more importantly, the other faculty are released from teaching that class and can do their research!) As to Kimura's actual position, research is not implied or mentioned in the position. Since NPROF is all about research, it should not be considered here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2019 (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.

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 redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect". Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oprah Effect[edit]

The Oprah Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NEO.The article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase and fails WP:GNG TruthGuardians (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or heavily rewrite to reflect what people commonly refer to when they refer to "The Oprah Effect", which isn't this. Artw (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect", though it may warrant a separate article as it has received a lot of coverage in RS, [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oprah Winfrey#"The Oprah Effect" Gokulh97 (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Phrase is not widely known and failed to gain traction beyond her very own circle.Factlibrary1 (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo De Augustine[edit]

Angelo De Augustine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The artist has one "bona fide studio album" on a minor label. Half the references are simply invitations to stream or watch the material, which is marginally promotional. And the information provided is little more than the discography. WP:TOOSOON. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 20:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep or, possibly even, Keep Notability guidelines for biographies. Emerging consensus at Erica C. Barnett's deletion discussion seems to be favouring keep despite most of that article's references being to the Seattle journalist-turned-Internet-blogger's investigative journalism examples of events at Seattle city hall. Angelo De Augustine has one or more "bona fide" studio albums, been reviewed by Paste and Anna Wintour's VOGUE magazine, and had reviews of his works published in Exclaim!, The Irish Times, and National Public Radio (NPR). I would actually argue WP:TOOSOON favours keep in this case due to their being significant press coverage about him or his albums. He kind of feels like a Dallas Smith (singer) to me, in terms of level of notoriety. Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems to pass at least criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO by having his last two albums widely reviewed [18], [19], not just in the US but by reputable publications in Canada and the UK as well, which makes it more likely that there are articles or features on the subject himself aside from the reviews. Richard3120 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as his works have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources such as Exclaim, The Irish Times, NPR and others shown at metacritic linked above imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Richard3120. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Samad Khan[edit]

Adnan Samad Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Störm (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. No coverage as such. What ref's are there are blogs and affiliate content, including a new newspapers which seems to picking content from the web as is of dubious quality. scope_creep^Talk 23:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another not notable article created by the same user. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The creator also has created other articles about Pakistani actors without checking their notability. This subject is a new actor and he has started acting career on 2019 by acting on a film and not in main role. Subject isn't notable. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable actor with no important roles to his credit. Geoffroi 19:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Totally fails WP:NACTOR NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. Clear consensus by permitted !voters that there is notability shown Nosebagbear (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tfue[edit]

Tfue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

non notable person with only few rs and all of them are unreliable. There are also no biographies and a slight content career --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination is a bit odd. This is not a character but a person. There are references from Newsweek and The Hollywood reporter. Count me as at least a procedural keep unless someone can clear up this nomination.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Cube lurker, well that's what the IP commented https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tfue&oldid=925833474 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I noticed you were copying over an IP's nomination. I was referring to the content of the nomination, and not any procedural work you did.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, already fix the typo. the topic has only few reliable sources and doesn't meet notability. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Restate my keep. We have Newsweek and the The Hollywood reporter. That's WP:GNG as I see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As a Nominator, Poorly written with only few reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked[reply]

I'm assuming this is the original nominator per [20] and per the comment posted on my talk page [21] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I might not be a Hater, but this person isnt got reliable sources or anything besides playing fortnite. Same to the other streamer that got also nominated. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this nominating for deletion is Suspicious. An Ip has nominated and another Ip voted "Delete". Subject is notable as a Youtuber and has 5.7 million followers on Instagram. Abtehas98 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC) :An Ip already admitted that he is a nominator. Having many subscribers and followers doesn't make the topic notable, it depends on the coverage. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: Every IP or new user in this discussion so far (and that is everyone who has !voted to delete) is either an open proxy, or a specific banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is he notable enough outside of his issues with Faze Clan? I only see articles related to that and his Twitter ban, so this might fall under WP:BLP1E? If he's not notable outside of Faze Clan then redirect to Faze Clan of which he is a prominent member.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see plenty of coverage regarding Tfue.
  • ESPN: Ninja, Tfue at risk of missing Fortnite World Cup duos final [22]
  • ESPN: Fortnite World Cup Finals: Who to watch [23]
  • Fox News: Fortnite star Tfue uses racial slur, but Twitch isn't commenting on rule violation [24],
  • Newsweek: Tfue contract leak? Faze Clan streamer responds to organization [25]
  • Verge: In the escalating fight between Twitch and Mixer, YouTube is the real winner [26]

According to the Verge article, he is Twitch's most followed active channel. Pbrks (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verge and other sources prove the person passes the General Notability guidelines. The same IP nominated multiple things with the help of someone else, and the same two now blocked accounts went to all of them to say delete. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TimTheTatman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scump. Dream Focus 06:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tfue seems to have gathered significant coverage from reliable sources. Some sources include:[27],[28],[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Therefore Tfue has satifisfied WP:GNG from this coverage.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely in-depth coverage in reliable sources as a notable influencer. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is a known influencer. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:29, 19 November 2019 (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.

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 speedy keep. No unblocked good faith editor has requested deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimTheTatman[edit]

TimTheTatman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

few rs and lots of unreliable sources, which the topic is not notable. the template has been placed for a long time and no improvements yet. --121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As a Nominator, just a loads of unreliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked single purpose account[reply]

*Weak Delete. It contains few good sources, but still fails notability perhaps. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

•  Checkuser note: Every !vote above including the IP nominator is either an open proxy, or a banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close for this bad nomination.  A single purpose IP addresses can not nominate a group of articles for deletion, and you shouldn't do it for them.  Since the only ones appearing to try to delete it are now blocked sock puppets, kindly close this bad nomination. Dream Focus 06:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Dream Focus, well there is no such rule that I can find that prevents IP from nominating articles. Even if we later ban them, I think they should be left open until there is a clear "keep" consensus. If you wish to change the rules, hold a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan[edit]

National Computer Science Academy Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to find sources sufficient to demonstrate this institution exists. Searches reveal a National Institute of Computer Sciences, a National Academy of Computer Sciences, et al. but all references to a "National Computer Sciences Academy" appear to be mirrors or non-RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:03, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. Tone 19:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Shmenge Brothers[edit]

The Shmenge Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

So, what makes these fictional characters notable? Sure, members of my generation and those younger who haven’t heard of these two characters knows who John Candy was from movies and a Saturday morning cartoon and Eugene Levy from movies and as Johnny Rose in Schitt’s Creek, but these two characters they played on SCTV in the 1980s still have to pass WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG to avoid WP:FANCRUFT and/or WP:JUNK. Pahiy (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete by merge and redirect to Second_City_Television#Sketches_and_characters. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable topic lacking sources. TTN (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2019 (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.

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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Public Secondary School[edit]

Ali Public Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL. Störm (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an article with no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Ridge, Arizona[edit]

Autumn Ridge, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is just a non-notable neighborhood within Phoenix, Arizona. Does not have "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources," necessary to meet WP:GNG MB 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep meets WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think this is legally recognized? MB 16:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my note below, MB.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable and nothing significant about it. It is just a neighborhood in Glendale, Arizona - Jay (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lightburst. It doesn't have much info (and Phoenix, Arizona, doesn't even mention it), but the US Geological Survey recognizes it and Wikipedia is also a gazetteer. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I agree with the good faith of the nom, it is notable as per WP:GEOLAND since it is officially recognized by the USGS as a populated place. I also find it interesting to Whjayg pipe in here, since they have so many AfD contributions. Could it be that this is the start of some WP:HOUNDING, since we had a disagreement over two articles they created? Might I suggest it be nipped in the bud.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The verbiage in Geoland refers to "legally recognized" populated places, not "officially recognized". Being mentioned by the USGS in a directory of all place names in the country does not confer "legal status". This is just a neighborhood (actually just a housing development named by the original builder), one of thousands in the city that are similarly non-notable. The nature of this "populated place" clearly fits within the second bullet of Geoland - "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments". A further note is that this "name" got picked up by the GNIS only because it was first listed in "Living: the Phoenix Housing Guide V. 6 #1. Dallas, Texas: Baker Publish Inc., 1983/1984." per the citation in GNIS. Whatever this guidebook was (I can find no mention of it anywhere except that one GNIS citation) is a tenuous basis for "legal recognition" MB 00:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being recognized by the federal government meets WP:GEOLAND.11:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND Smartyllama (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, also, NeighborhoodScout has some info including "Most neighborhoods are composed of a mixture of ages of homes, but the Autumn Ridge / Dunhill Place stands out as rather unique in having nearly all of its residential real estate built in one time period, namely between 1970 and 1999, generally considered to be established, but not old housing." that could be incorporated into the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should definitely not be added to the article as it is machine-generated gibberish. Most neighborhoods in the greater Phoenix area are built over a few years by one developer. Autumn Ridge is NOT unique at all. MB 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeighborhoodScout also appears only to auto-generate statistics from certain census tracts and isn't an WP:RS. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coolabahapple, NS uses census tables to automatically generate pages for each of the 74,134 census tracts in the country, in this case Census Tract 618100. GEOLAND specifically says "One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." It also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." This census tract is NOT the same as Autumn Ridge. Where are the sources about the subdivision itself that are written by humans? Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thanks everybody, i am duly chastised and have deleted my "keep". :) Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per User:MB's nomination and sensible responses, esp. including that GNIS mention ("mention by the federal government") absolutely does NOT establish a legal entity. It is apparently just a housing development sometimes termed a neighborhood by random realtors. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that point, the GNIS entry literally states that Autumn Ridge is "A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. (emphasis added).

User:SportingFlyer's comment below clarifies for me that the type of populated places we want to cover are the current or former unincorporated communities/settlements out there, that might be ghost towns now or in the future, that generally don't have exact boundaries. Not just any subsection of an urban or suburban fully developed area that someone can define/coin. We do cover "neighborhoods" sometimes, such as those covered in Neighborhoods in Boston, which starts off with a list of 23 official, meaningful neighborhoods used in planning and in delivery of city services, and goes on to mention overlapping other neighborhoods. If wp:GNG is met about an unofficial area that overlaps official ones, or otherwise does not coincide with any legal entity, then fine, we can cover it. But not any and every housing development or mini-neighborhood or maxi-neighborhood name that is coined by random people. We don't want to cover an area entirely within legal/known larger populated places, which has meaning only the eyes of a realtor trying to make an area sound good, and wanting it to be new and distinctive perhaps so they can say they are the only realtor supposedly specializing in that area, in order to try to drum up business for themselves. --Doncram (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not actually a "populated place" per our Wikipedia guidelines. The GNIS notes: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." (emphasis mine) It appears to be a subdevelopment, wholly within an already legally populated place, which has a USGS database entry for some reason. Other similar entries include Desert Village Mobile Home Park, Arizona - there are 867 in total of which 25% are mobile home parks, so it is not as if the database is capturing unincorporated towns, and the two most recent non-mobile trailer park additions are not cities but subdevelopments, suggesting we cannot use this dataset in good faith with WP:GEOLAND, which is meant to identify populated places. The three kickers for me: 1) this place has no legally recognised census count, 2) this place is wholly located within a legally recognised place and 3) this place definitively fails WP:GNG. The WP:GNG is important here because nobody recognises this place as a place except for the USGS, and while every distinct housing subdevelopment in Phoenix typically receives its own name. Since WP:GEOLAND only creates a presumption of notability, albeit a very strong presumption as we are a gazetteer, this is a good example of a place which we do not need to have an entry for. SportingFlyer T·C 09:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I also did a newspapers.com search in Arizona. The only thing I could find was this advertisement for a subdevelopment: [44] (ran on multiple days but only giving you this one.) Other coverage was for apartments with the same name in different areas than the subdevelopment. My speculation: this development was originally built on unincorporated land and then later annexed into Glendale, but I have absolutely nothing to prove that. I don't think the spirit of WP:GEOLAND extends to defining housing developments as a "populated place," it's loose because we want to include any town, city, or village regardless of their levels of coverage, and this is none of those things. SportingFlyer T·C 03:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up this subdivision in the Maricopa County GIS and found a 1982 aerial photo with four homes built. This matches the time-frame of the 1983 advertisement above. The plat information says this is a subdivision of 97 lots/homes. This is in Phoenix (although the mailing address is Glendale). I couldn't find a historical boundary map to show it was county land at the time, but I think SportingFlyer is correct that it was unincorporated and later annexed into (Phoenix). I also found that there is also an Autumn Ridge-2 subdivision just down the street in Glendale with 220 lots. MB 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNIS/USGS is NOT "legal recognition", it is a database of names that have appeared on maps. NGEO "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." How is a database of names on maps any different from the map itself? This is clearly a subdivision that falls under "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc". The subdivision is located in incorporated Deer Valley, Arizona: THAT is the legally recognized place, not these streets that make up half of Census Tract 618100. There are not sources that establish notability of this place. Reywas92^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO as set out by above editors. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This area must meet the higher bar of GEOLAND #2. …subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. And because sources do not exist to pass GNG required by GEOLAND #2, this article should be deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2019 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari[edit]

Gudiya Hamari Sabhi Pe Bhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Most probably a product of WP:COI, an article about just another TV show that exists.

I am aware a few of the editors would cite WP:TVSERIES without much thought and/or explanation. It says: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It also says: [...] however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.

The TV show in discussion hasnt been reviewed by any well known/notable critic. It hasnt won any awards. It hasnt received significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage I could find is from press releases, noticeable paid articles, primary sources, and gossip/telly sites. Nothing in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the series status of TVSERIES is doubtful. The two networks it appears on accord to the article seem to have limited distribution. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:57, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas (political strategist)[edit]

John Thomas (political strategist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a political pundit, who has been interviewed for opinions a few times but doesn't seem to have anyone actually taken an interest in him enough to meet our threshold for inclusion as per WP:GNG. The original article was a redirect to John Addison Thomas I have no opposition to it being reverted back to that. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't have much meaningful coverage for a political pundit/strategist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2019 (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.

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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworld Resort[edit]

Dreamworld Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

previously deleted article, sources provided do not address topic in detail, merely mention it as being host of some wrestling matches. Much of text is lifted from organisations website (dreamworld.pk) Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see much in way to make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 23:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks coverage from reliable third party sources. One of their sources is a facebook post. Sonstephen0 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another non-notable article created by the same user that keeps getting deleted. A warning my be needed for this user as well... - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has not been discussed extensively in reliable sources, until then, my vote is for delete. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 19 November 2019 (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.

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 merge to Yandex Maps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yandex.Map editor[edit]

Yandex.Map editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This website exists, but what makes it notable? While input from a Russian-speaking editor would be nice, this needs to pass WP:GNG if not Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and neither the sources in the article nor the ones I can see seems to be go beyond primary/press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Yandex Maps, the parent website. This is just a crowdsourced data interface for the Yandex maps site, not a standalone website. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Yandex Maps, the parent website. Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2019 (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.

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. Tone 19:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Googlepedia[edit]

Googlepedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (snow) It was already clear at the last AfD that there's at least four sources WP:Articles for deletion/Googlepedia (2nd nomination). That passes WP:GNG, so did the nom even check that? Widefox; talk 11:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In point of fact, the 4 references cited in the 2nd nomination are (in order):404, one paragraph in a listicle, also 404, a very short Washington Post article that barely goes beyond "this exists". References have to be WP:V to contribute to GNG. A broken browser extension that ended support nine years ago has a hard time establishing notability even given WP:NOTTEMPORARY and this one doesn't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete easy close needs better references. Not sure if this is even worth having a page on DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. Consensus that sufficient sourcing exists to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Divorce[edit]

The Divorce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable group. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The band name makes it difficult to find sources, but the AllMusic refs are all I could find as well. Any charting? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lolol "SHiPS has not released a full-length album yet, but a 5-song EP is available for purchase on their MySpace page for $5." I found some routine local coverage of when they played in local venues [45], but WP:AUD applies. Albums release on a non-notable label is not enough for notability. Also recommend deleting The Gifted Program. Reywas92^Talk 08:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know who Ships are but The Divorce have released two full length albums and WP:AUD only applies to companies and organisations not music groups, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm acknowledging my conflict of interest as member of the band and a subject of this article. I'm not super-clear how to engage in this, but I've updated the page to more-extensively cite sources, as well as call out the associations with more-notable international acts in order to better comply with WP:AUD. Paleblinds (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has reliable sources coverage including AllMusic bio and review, coverage in The Stranger (newspaper) and The Seattle Times added to the article since it was listed so passes WP:GNG, imv. Also, the album pages can be redirected if not notable, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • AllMusic bio: [46] and review of their albums there [47] and [48]. Local coverage in The Stranger ([49][50], short entry not listed) and Seattle Times: [51]. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the rationale of Atlantic306. Passes WP:GNG Non-trivial coverage. WP:PRESERVE Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP There are reliable sources in article for establishing notability of subject. مضحرالعجایب (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (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.

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. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roadbuster[edit]

Roadbuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable Transformers cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fancruft. Redirect to a related Transformers page, there's not enough non-action figure description to warrant a page specifically for Roadbuster. --Hog Farm (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Taking a look at the sources: The first by "Phillip M. Gervais" leads to a fan forum which does not appear to be vetted, the second source seems more reliable although I can find no in depth detail about the author [52], the third source by "Mark Bellomo" is reliable, the 4th source is a patent (unrelated?), sources 5, 7, and 8 link to the same fan forum as source 1, and source 6 leads to a toy website. If anything I would merge the info cited by Mark Bellomo somewhere and toss the rest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2019 (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.

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. Consensus that insufficient sources (that are both reliable & independent) exist to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos Dimadis[edit]

Thanos Dimadis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It seems that it does not meet WP:GNG. Most sources are brief biographies from RS that give some bites of info on the author of an article. What is needed for an article to meet GNG are the article of RS to discuss the life, career or achievement of the a person. Cinadon36 14:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah I think it should be deleted, a quick Google Search about him (excluding Wikipedia, Twitter, and his own websites) gives results that are mostly bios on news websites, and not notable enough. Also he recently used Wikipedia on his twitter to "prove" his educational credentials, which seems fishy to me since this entire article is written as an advertisement. --Michail (blah) 17:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To repeat my comment on the article talk page, I can see citations to articles written by the subject himself, or to others that mention him as the author of an article or an interviewer, but nothing that is actually about Dimades, and I can find no such sources myself. It would appear that the authors of the article have done their best to find sources that would contribute towards notability, but have come up with none, so I can only conclude that he is not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another article about a non-notable "political analyst/strategist" with heavy COI editing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale provided by @Cinadon36:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 19 November 2019 (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.