Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty
Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Article written by a POV pusher, from what I can tell from the contribs. Notability is iffy at best. Comments? I'm leaning toward some sort of redirect. Neutralitytalk 06:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Horrible article, but I do think there is some notability. I've NPOV-cleaned the article which doesn't leave much, but I suggest we leave that as a stub. Making it a redirect to The Skeptical Environmentalist would be acceptable though. --fvw *  08:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I added a bit and I think this can stay. Seems to me like all this global warming articles are infested with an ultra-cynical POV. Neutralitytalk 08:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks OK now. I don't see why the comment about The Skeptical Environmentalist was removed;  I suspect that it is the only thing this body has been in the news for. Isomorphic 08:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The Lomborg ref should have been NPOV'd (it's a matter of fact that they ruled on his book) not erased. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but some statement at what its purpose is supposed to be might be helpful.Icundell 12:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's impossible to redirect it to The Skeptical Environmentalist because DCSD is not only about this event. On the other hand, this event is important for DCSD so it must be included. I also think that this event has shown that DCSD is analogous to the Inquisition - because its goal has been proved to be to prosecute the scientists who publish politically inconvenient results - and if the article were objective, this would be mentioned. But I realize that there are too many people who prefer to obscure and deny this analogy. The people with the average ignorance who consider anyone who goes beyond their average ignorance a "POV pusher". --Lumidek 17:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment None of that is hard to deal with. Section 1: Whahat is its constitutional and legal role and status? Section 2: What do its supporters say; Section 3: What do critics say? Section 4: Outline the TSE incident. All of this can be done from NPOV while giving every side a fair hearing. Average ignorance is not a factor. Icundell 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree. That's what I intended to be there. --Lumidek 20:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Wyss 20:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Megan1967 22:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has the potential to be encyclopedic.  The SE incident is the basis for the committee's current notability and should be retained. I would like to know of the background of the committees, what their intended purpose is, and more about why there was a disagreement regarding whether the SE decision was within their remit. --BM
 * POVvy-ness is absolutely under no circumstance cause for deletion. Keep article as it presently stands.  GRider\talk 17:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)