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. Most of the keep arguments, while numerous, are rather vague, and largely boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. But, FourViolas cites a number of what look like good sources, which nobody refuted, so based largely on FourViolas's argument alone, I'm calling this a keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific dissent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD was closed as no consensus because it seems that the arguments explaining why this article should be deleted weren't fully formed. Since it was closed as no consensus, it is fine to start a new AfD. I hereby attempt to make the argument for why a redirect is the best solution.

Aside from the idea of scientific consensus which has lately become a very popular concept in the field of science and technology studies, the particular idea of scientific dissent has found rigorous treatment in precisely one journal article: that of Kristen Intemann Inmaculada de Melo-Martín. Essentially no one else has identified this phenomenon as a separate and worthy-to-discuss idea outside of this one source. It is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote such an idea with such a limited source background.

The proper home for a WP:WEIGHTed discussion of Inmaculada de Melo-Martín's work would be at scientific consensus. The ideas found in the article can be safely incorporated there, though it is doubtful to me that much discussion is necessary over there, nor do I see an absolute need to use this source at that page. jps (talk) 02:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as a notable topic in science and technology studies in its own right. Academically published RS include:

Inmaculada de Melo-Martín 2012, "Scientific dissent and public policy", referred to in nom
Delborne 2008 "Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice"
Martin 2008, "Enabling Scientific Dissent"
Maguire 2007, "Scientific Dissent amid the United Kingdom Government’s Nuclear Weapons Programme"
Bechler 1974, "Newton's 1672 optical controversies: a study in the grammar of scientific dissent"
Aklin 2013, "Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy"
Westin 1986, "Professional and ethical dissent: Individual, corporate and social responsibility"

These sources demonstrate significant and lasting attention to the ways in which researchers depart from scientific consensus; their reasons for doing so; barriers to doing so; consequences for the researchers, society, and policy; and so on. That's more than enough for a standalone encyclopedic article, per GNG. Frequent mentions in the news, even excluding a much-discussed document called "Scientific Dissent to Darwinism [sic]", provide further evidence that a targeted article can be valuable. FourViolas (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: to say "the particular idea of scientific dissent has found rigorous treatment in precisely one journal article" is simply not true. It is discussed, for example, in Creating Scientific Controversies: Uncertainty and Bias in Science and Society (Cambridge University Press, 2015) by David Harker, who draws on Miriam Solomon's 2001 book Social Criticism, as well as C. Shambu Prasad, "Creative Dissent: Linking Vulnerability and Knowledge in India," in Vulnerability in Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance (MIT Press, 2014) - Prasad draws on Jason Delborne, "Transgenes and Transgressions: Scientific Dissent as Heterogeneous Practice" Social Studies of Science (2008). St Anselm (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presently the article discusses several specific authors' views on dissent in science, and I think the politicization article is more appropriate where politics are involved. Galileo and Lysenko are almost straw-men here, as they often are; Galileo was right and dissented, and Lysenko was wrong and dissent was suppressed. Those incidents are in the pre-modern scientific era, and they should not be used to suggest that there is some merit in dissent from things that are presently well-established. I'm opposed to keeping the article based on WP:GNG as well, because I think that dissent is not a concept applicable to the scientific method. Science can be politicized and it can be wrong, but one cannot dissent from the scientific consensus for a non-scientific reason and call that dissent "science". Roches (talk) 06:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand your comment, but to the first sentence consider WP:POTENTIAL in light of the many sources above. To the second, it sounds like you disagree with the above authors' choice of terminology even though you acknowledge that GNG is met; you're entitled to your position, but in a deletion discussion that's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. FourViolas (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientific consensus or Scientific method for the exact same reasons I gave last time: This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, and screams "future coatrack!" every time I read it. There's nothing in here that isn't covered elsewhere, and the article doesn't help to tie those parts together because they're already tied together in the two targets for redirect I mentioned above. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: nothing in here that isn't covered elsewhere - false. "tied together in the two targets" - The two targets are coatracks even in worse than the current one. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for something in this article that isn't covered elsewhere. Not seeing it. Still looking... Nope, nothing so far. I'm at the end with bupkiss to show for it. So your words say "False" but your (utter lack of) evidence says "Of course the amazingly handsome and unbelievably intelligent guy with the juvenile-yet-funny Nordic username is correct." Or something like that, at least. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha very funny. I'm sure you know a nifty logical trick about proving that something exists vs. proving that something doesn't. Anyways, please point me to a wikipedia article which covers points made by Kristen Intermann. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles that do. Including this one. Also, if it's logical, it's not a trick. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FourViolas and StAnselm. This subject definitely meets WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find more substantial sources covering the topic. Apart from those listed above, there's Social Influence in Science: Agreement and Dissent in Achieving Scientific Consensus; Science and Dissent in Post-Mao China: The Politics of Knowledge; and Pathways of Scientific Dissent in Agricultural Biotechnology. Andrew D. (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid topic; important issues considered based on reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable topic with substantial WP:RS coverage, as covered by FourViolas above. Article needs a partial rewrite to better reflect this range of sources.Dialectric (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous sources, as noted above and also including e.g. the section on scientific dissent in Science and Politics: An A-to-Z Guide to Issues and Controversies (Brent S. Steel, ed.). The presnt article is really, really bad, but deletion is not the appropriate response to that. -- 120.17.23.114 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Even if the topic is notable the lack of any significant content that's disjoint from Scientific consensus screams WP:NOPAGE. Rhoark (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge to scientific consensus - this is part of that topic and should be covered there; that article is not so long that it cannot fully cover its topic. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - freedom to dissent from current scientific consensus is an essential driver of the scientific process. It's a big part of how real science progresses. This is an important article, an article which provides also balance and counterpoint to fundamentalists who advocate naive and repressive forms of scientism. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been discussion over at the Talk page about whether this article is simply a part of routine scientific method. Even if it is, we have articles on Hypothesis, Exploratory research, Data collection, Research data archiving, etc, all of which are a part of routine scientific method. It seems logical to keep this article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:57, 27 August 2016 (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.