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 no consensus. The "delete" arguments don't strike me as so compelling as to mandate deletion; they say the article is bad, but rarely go into any detail as to how and why this requires deletion per our policies. Sandstein 12:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific dissent[edit]

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

It's a well sourced op-ed piece that fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:NOTOPINION. The subject may well be notable but this essay is so deeply flawed that it would likely have to be rewritten from the ground up to pass NPOV. Better to blow it up and start from scratch. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this nomination is so deeply flawed I have no slightest idea how to even start addressing the accusations. ("Staszek Lem never stopped beating his wife") - not a single specific argument but alphabet soup. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. An important topic. Certainly the article is capable of improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly an encylopedic topic, and it's well sourced, easily well enough to meet WP:GNG. The nominator hasn't followed WP:BEFORE very well here. Omni Flames (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 11:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. 131.142.152.179 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)— 131.142.152.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete I just read the entire article and there's absolutely nothing in there wouldn't be blatantly obvious from a reading of a two-paragraph description of how science works. That's not to say there's anything wrong with what's written there, just that... Come on, do we really need an article explaining that yes, sometimes scientists disagree, and yes, sometimes people talk about it? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: " blatantly obvious from a reading of a two-paragraph description of how science works." - and where this description to be found is? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All over the place. There's no particular description I had in mind. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of such descriptions from which I could extrapolate everything in that article. Instead of getting defensive over this nomination (which your activities here strongly suggests you to have done), why not try to improve the article to address the concerns expressed here? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to address "concerns expressed here". But... "All over the place", "this essay is so deeply flawed" - here is my addressing: ~~you are bullshitting, colleagues, pardon my French.~~ These concerns are of WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind, i.e., not actionable. I am not "defensive", I am utterly confused. I am not promoting some minor business, or my girlfriend, or a kranky theory; I have absolutely no hidden agenda (and BTW hence I have no interest "to improve the article" beyond what I've already written, and which is would be well beyond my expertise). I need an education about what was wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that display of psychic powers in telling me exactly what I think. I'd be impressed, if you weren't completely and utterly wrong. As for what is wrong with the article, because I am the forgiving sort, I'll stoop to repeating myself and trying to expound upon this in the attempt to help you understand my concerns. Basically, there is no part of that article that isn't covered in more detail elsewhere.

Scientific consensus covers the disagreements among scientists as a normal part of science, an issue which is also addressed in Scientific method, as indicated in the article itself.
Manufactured controversy covers everything mentioned in the "False scientific dissent" section, and much of what is mentioned in the "Effects on modern public policies" section.
The Galileo affair article covers everything mentioned about Galileo, and in much more depth.
Lysenkoism covers everything mentioned about Lysenkoism, and in much more depth as well.
Politicization of science covers everything in the "Effects on modern public policies" section, and much of what is mentioned in the "False scientific dissent" section.

Indeed, most of the article consists of summaries of parts of other articles, and the only materials which doesn't is -as I've already said- easily deduced from reading a brief description of how science works. This article is at best, useless repetition, and at worst, the foundation for a coatrack upon which to push fringe POVs in the future. (I'm not saying it's fringe pushing now.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In fact I did not write them as summaries. Some "main" tags were added later by other people and I followed their example. I see your point, but I still disagree with your conclusion. Further discussion, if chance happens, will belong to the article talk page. At the moment I will only mention WP:SUMMARY. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you mentioned WP:SUMMARY. It doesn't do anything to contradict me, nor does your statement that you see my points but still disagree without giving the slightest reason as to why. In fact, your statement here is pretty much textbook WP:LIKE. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not clear enough. If the article does not survive, then I see no point wasting time arguing; contrary to your impression, I am not that attached to this article. But if it survives, we can discuss its improvement. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY seems particularly relevant, as it implies that the same content can appear at various different articles, each one exploring one part of the topic at different levels of detail. This means that having some content repeated is not a problem; most broad concept articles are "summaries of parts of other articles" and we consider them valid topics and viable articles. Diego (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to scientific method. After removing the repetition and verbosity the material that remains could easily fit into the scientific method article. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the compliment. I never thought I am verbose :-). Since wikipedia is not paper I fail to see why a separate topic must be merged in a broader one. Please explain the advantages. (A possible one is to avoid overlap, but now it is exactly 0%) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here for keeping the article. - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Relevant topic identifies by the sources, with well-known political and historic cases.Diego (talk) 08:07, 26 July 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.