Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lavoisier Group


 * 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. - Daniel.Bryant 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lavoisier Group

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability, but the speedy deletion is being hotly contested. I've no interest in responding to an angry rant from the author on my talk page, so I'm brining this here straight away (since it would end up here after a few days of argument anyway). Steel 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am the author of the article. I feel miffed by your accusation of "angry rant" here, which I think is undeserved.
 * As for the article itself, I'd like to point out that I had to start the discussion myself about its proposed deletion since the user who proposed it did not even have the decency to explain or discuss before adding the tag. --Childhood&#39;s End 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As an Australian, this group seems pretty well known to me and is notable. It needs work to get the sources right, not deleting. --Bduke 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for The Age do publish a lengthy article on them in 2004. I disagree with their politics, but they're certainly notable enough for inclusion. Where is this "angry rant" on your talk page? --Canley 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep notable and representative of one POV on climate change. Paul foord 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable and well referenced.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible reduce and merge into something like List of scientists opposing global warming consensus. I'm concerned about the quality of the sources.  This group has provoked criticism from its global warming opponents, but has not attracted enough attention from mainstream sources to write a thorough WP:NPOV article.  The only sources I've been able to find that are non-trivial (i.e. more than a passing mention, e.g. a quote from one of the group's members) are opinion pieces written by partisans in the global warming debate.  The one exception seems to be the article on theage.com.au.  If more sources are found that are non-trivial and written by a disinterested party, I'll probably change my suggestion.  Pan Dan 15:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough to get a article in a major newspaper, and reasonably well-referenced to boot. Open and shut case, I think.  Lankiveil 00:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep Notable in Australia. It's not surprising that most discussions are partisan, this is a controversial issue and the group is partisan. Its members have published quite a few opinion pieces and these have attracted responses. JQ 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This group seems to me notable enough when compared to many other individuals/organizations already deserving an article on Wiki. Also, as for the List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, it has been limited so far to "individual scientists (so that organizations are excluded from it) with a record of scholarship in the natural sciences who have stated their opposition in specific, attributable statements". Even more, my understanding is that the "opposition" must have been stated against one of three specific statements taken from the IPCC, otherwise the opposition does not "make the cut". Even Hendrik Tennekes was deleted from it... --Childhood&#39;s End 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 03:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.