Deletion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy

Comment: This is a highly misleading list compiled by an editor. Fortunately  still rules, and it is not satisfactory for an article to essentially say "the following is nonsense, but we're going to list it anyway because it might convince a reader that there must be a vaccine problem". Further, a scientist may well have raised objections about a particular study, or about the general issue, but now has a different view based on an assessment of currently available data. Science is not a vote, and even if it were, it is UNDUE to list a small number of objectors without listing the vast majority of scientists who support the mainstream position
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:DUE)

Comment: as  violation. In most cases the sources do not establish that they oppose "the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy" (whatever that means). In July 1999, the US Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure, and several people on the list have made statements totally consistent with that. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.29.207|101.119.29.207
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as  and because of the BLP issues raised by TenOfAllTrades
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: but would support delete on the basis of  because there are serious  problems here. I do not feel this article should attempt to be a list of scientists who "oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy", but would support this content being moved to List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy because that number is relatively few and it would relieve BLP concerns. The book ''Bad Pharma'' has a chapter on this topic, and suggests that despite the thimerosal controversy becoming a major international controversy, there was scientific consensus on one side and only a few researchers in opposition. Lists on Wikipedia are almost always original research as is the category system, but at least in the case of lists it is possible to provide citations to verify whether a statement is so. It seems that right now many entries in this list are poorly cited and also as I said, I feel that this list should be reserved for people for whom their position on this issue is key to their public identity and not those for whom this affiliation is merely incidental
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:BLOWITUP||WP:V)

Comment: per  - I agree with Bluerasberry that there is probably some salvageable material here, but I believe anything saveable should be merged into the articles about the thimerosal controversy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: This is a huge . Many of the people listed on this page are insufficiently notable to have their own articles too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: While it doesn't seem to be intended as an attack page, there are serious BLP issues which may arise from associating working, professional scientists (which would describe at least a few of the people on the list) with such a black-and-white declaration of their position on a politically-sensitive issue.  The recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy touches on some further problems.  It is also not clear how Wikipedia is served by creating this list; again, while the ''intent'' at work in its creation is probably innocent, the ''effect'' is to create a nifty bit of inappropriate  &ndash; bolstering a particular fringe POV &ndash; by collating and summarizing as many anti-thimerosal claims as possible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)