Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming
Why is this page under consideration to be deleted?[edit]
Why is this page being considered for deletion? Doug Mattens (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Read the page this is the talk page for. Click on Projet page instead of Talk. Dmcq (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I'm not sure you should be writing on this page. I previously added a word to it (expressing my opinion on the decision to delete it). Bishonen (the admin that deleted the page) messaged me, told me I "recreated" the talk page, and that it was "disruptive." And then he deleted what I wrote. Kolg8 (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Kolg8: This page is fine to discuss the AFD, but Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming is not. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, Thanks! But to be honest, I'm still confused. I added a single word expressing my opinion on the decision to delete the page, but was told by Bishonen that I was attempting to recreate the page, which was disruptive. And then my opinion was deleted. So if this page is fine for discussing the article that was deleted . . . does that mean I can add my opinion regarding the decision to delete it back to this page? Thanks. Kolg8 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing has been removed from this page. I believe that the edit you made that was deleted was not to this page (the talk page for the deletion discussion). It was actually to the talk page of the article itself. When an article is deleted, typically its talk page is too. When you left a comment there, you recreated that page, which was not the correct thing to do.
- But now the article's talkpage is re-deleted and salted, so no harm done. ApLundell (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I believe you are correct. I probably was confused and I did add my opinion, that the deletion of the page was "shameful," to the talk page of the article itself. But respectfully, I think we're going to have to disagree that "no harm was done." The talk page had a lot of research about numerous scientists who disagreed with IPCC3, but didn't make the article's criteria for inclusion (for example, the scientist didn't have an english language wikipedia page, their opinion was on a petition and not one they personally expressed in a reliable source, etc.) But if I'm not mistaken, that valuable research has now been deleted. If it exists somewhere else in an archived state, I'd love to have access to it. Kolg8 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The page can comeback under better terms?[edit]
meganinja202 (talk) - I wonder if there is a way to have a consensus in bring the article back (or at least a possible alternative to list prominient global warning deniers), I think that way that the deletion happened may cause a demage for the neutral image and status of wikipedia , not mentioning the use of some media (the bias of such medias doesnt comes account, but such medias can influence general public opinion) to desquelify the entire wiki due this deletation, what ,in my opinion, is really bad for transmission of truth and knowledgement, benefiting fake news and misinformation
Reading the last November discussion, i noticied that there were people that talked about the referencies and souces problem, i am sure that should have at least some sources that can proof that exist some scientists that are agnaist the idea of a global warning, if even the Scientific consensus on climate change says that arent exactly 100% but something around 98%, then i guess that the 2% also should have a space to be heared (and critizied) as well as the 98% have been
If is not possibile create something equal as the original, then at least i ask for a alternative instead, something that keep the idea of neutrality for the wiki i am not even a denier, i also belive that climate change is a problem, but i just think that the way that deletion happened goes aganist the idea of neutrality of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganinja202 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of people voted Keep (including myself). It was, surprise! Controversial. What do you expect? It has to go one way and not the other. Such is life and Wikipedia. What forum did you read about his on and clicking through from? -- GreenC 00:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was always a problem article, more so now that OR and NOT are being more aggressively enforced. Basically, the article was "A list of people that certain Wikipedians' feel have enough relevant background in science that their denial of the science related to climate change is somehow worth noting, along with their credentials, as compared to certain Wikipedians' analysis of what the consensus on climate change means". --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Talk page fork[edit]
As a point of interest, there seems to be a second talk page for this deletion discussion.
(I guess it's in article-talk space instead of wikipedia-talk?)