Deletion of Denialism (2nd nomination)

Comment: Clearly notable, with plenty of  that show this is notable and not synth, such as this http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist New Humanist article, mainly about AIDS denialism but also other forms
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Sufficient sources have been given to show this is a notable concept. Claiming that "denialism" is a non-word is silly on its face, given the prevalence of reports describing Holocaust denial and AIDS denial; further it seems that the entire basis for deleting is a very narrow reading of . This isn't a whole new word, or even a new use of the word, so NEO isn't relevant here. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: the only possible content of this article, no matter how well sourced, is a dictionary definition (see ) and then a series of instances of people, organisations, and viewpoints being accused of denialism, which has no inherent encyclopedic value and fundamentally violates .  Denialism isn't a coherent philosophy, movement, or method of logic and as such it's not possible for there to be analysis of it that rises above the level of POV accusations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTADICTIONARY||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Please note that 'google hits' do not in anyway confer notability or establish . What we need are good sources that cover 'Denialism' as a standalone concept, so that editors do not have to resort to . When taking part in this discussion please do so from wikipedia policy and |reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SYNTH||WP:RS)

Comment: It is not a coherent movement, but it is a well-defined sociological phenomenon. The use of the term with the same meaning in several contexts by disparate groups refutes , and the sourcing takes care of the rest. The general unity of the several claims and tactics used by denialists, including moving the goalposts, reversing the burden of proof, ''teach the controversy'', reliance on the Galileo Gambit and similar fallacies, citing weak, biased, or out of date evidence to say that the jury is not yet in, projective assignment of motivation, and lionizing "experts" based more on conclusions than validity of evidence, unify this as a proper encyclopedic topic. Notable examples of the concept, such as AIDS denialism, Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, ''&c.'' should of course be treated. A few more example sources covering denialism (or "trees" in the analogy above): {{ISBN|9780387794754}} ''Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy'' By Seth C. Kalichman, Nicoli Nattrass (page 9 defines denialism in general); http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1147817 Climate: Game Over by Donald Kennedy; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 the EJPH article mentioned above really does bear repeating. If the title is a problem, that can be solved at Talk:Denialism. Some discussion of use as a rhetorical technique might be in order
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: First, let me confess that the current article is ''much'' better than I remember when I looked at it a few years ago.  That said, there is still a fundamental  issue here coupled to a subtle bit of synthesis.  The modern concept of "denialism" is a neologism.  Like many neologisms it has older roots in the history of Holocaust denial, which spread to aboriginal denial, then AIDS denial, climate change denial, etc.  The scope of things that "denial" gets tacked on to has expanded rapidly in just the last 15 years (since AIDS denial became common), and with it there has grown an emerging new concept of "denialism".  But the core issue is that the terms themselves are in flux.  Gather ten experts and ask them what "denialism" is, and I'm sure you get 10 different answers with varying ranges and scopes.  That's the core of the neologism problem.  "Denialism" itself is a fuzzy concept that isn't easily pinned down and is entirely absent from nearly all dictionaries.  The article, as currently constructed, tries to pin it down, and that's the origin of the Synth problem.  The editors select and interpret sources to promote a particular interpretation of what "denialism" is.  Yes, they can find people to agree with them, but it fails to consider other points of view that would disagree about what "denialism" means.  For example, go back 15 years when the number of accepted "X denial" concepts was much narrower and the historical scope of these terms would seem considerably different.  Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I think this is a case where Wikipedia is being used to shape the meaning of "denialism" rather than merely document its meaning, which isn't appropriate for a reference work.  Given that, I feel it is premature for Wikipedia to have an article on "denialism", and we are better off without it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I think it's been clearly demonstrated, through various sources, that this is a notable word and concept. It is a 'neologism' in the sense that it's a word that was coined relatively recently, but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it - this concept has become widely recognised pretty quickly. One can argue that the article is not perfectly |neutral, and that it might contain elements of |original research, but I don't think you can argue that it shouldn't exist at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:OR)

Comment: It's a pejorative, POV word, which means that per  we ought to include a widespread discussion of its usage. And, as plenty of others have noted, there are plenty of RS for this article as it stands now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:YESPOV)

Comment: Seems to be a |soapy |coatrack - guilt by association, Godwin's law - it's got the works.  And it is directly contrary to the guidance of , "''For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them.''".  I also endorse the points made by others above that it is improper |synthesis
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP||WP:COATRACK||WP:NEO||WP:SYN)

Comment: Core concept is documented in  (see for example Fassin(2007) p115, which discusses 'denialism' ''as a general concept'', not just 'AIDS denialism') and article is more than a  definition, so meets #Articles on neologisms. Whilst articles of this type do create problems for demarcating what is ynthesis versus what is legitimate paraphrasing ('deny'→'denial'→'denialist'→'denialism'), I think there is sufficient non-YNTH material to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:DICT||WP:NEO||WP:S||WP:SYNTH||WP:GNG)

Comment: The several |sources listed in this AfD should be reinserted or more clearly highlighted within the article. The  claims seem perjures or somewhat vindictive rather than substantive. The article is far, far from feature quality, but considerably better than many others here. It could be improved, but it fills an apparent niche that covers the more general topic of denialism. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: While about 20% of the editors expressing opinion here are for "delete" (9/45 by my count) the proportion of text arguing for "delete" is much higher - at a guess about 40%. This is largely because of a couple of editors (particularly, but not only, Unomi) repeating the same arguments over and over again, continually saying "" and "there are no sources", apparently oblivious of the sources which have been given and the answers given to , that is to say playing . I should say that this is a first class example of denialism, and an excellent illustration that the concept does exist. What a pity that this Wikipedia discussion is not a reliable source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)

Comment: All the arguments for deletion are spurious. (1) We have continually been given references to , but nowhere are we clearly told what has been synthesised, either in this discussion or in the article's talk page. At a guess I should say that we are supposed to infer that AIDS denialism , Holocaust denialism etc are separate, and have been arbitrarily lumped together. However, the concept of denialism (refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality) is exactly the same in each case, and is applied to different examples.  refers to combining elements of different sources together to reach a conclusion which is not given in any of the sources: if those claiming  think this has been done then they should be able to say exactly what conclusion has been falsely reached in this way, but nowhere have they done so. To take content from sources which refer to ''denialism'' in connection with AIDS together with sources which refer to ''denialism'' in connection with the "holocaust" is not  unless doing so reaches some conclusion not found in either group of sources, such as that anyone who denies AIDS is also a holocaust denier. AS long as no such unwarranted conclusions are drawn there is nothing wrong with combining such sources, any more than in an article about trees one cannot refer to both sources on oaks and sources on sycamores. (2) We have the claim that "this word does not exist". This line of argument has been used much more on the article's talk page. The word does exist, and is used in numerous books and other works. The claim that the word does not exist seems to be based on its absence from certain dictionaries. However, the view that a word exists only if it is listed in a dictionary, although popular, is untenable. Lexicographers put words in dictionaries because they are used, and there is always a time lag between the word's coming into use and its being recorded. This issue is discussed at much greater length on the article's talk page. Curiously, the person who above says the word "does not exist" goes on '''in the same sentence''' to refer to it as a "word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust)", thereby acknowledging that it is a word, and is used. The fact that the word is used only in limited contexts does not disqualify it for coverage: the word "oak" is used only in reference to one genus of trees, but that does not stop us from having an article on it. Besides, there are other uses of the term, even if less common, as has been pointed out above. (3) We are told that we need "sources ... about the term—not books and papers that use the term". No, we need sources about ''the concept to which the term refers'': that is not the same as sources about ''the term''. The article on Oak gives references to sources about oaks, not to sources about the word "oak". The quotation "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" taken from Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is poorly worded: in general we do not have articles about terms (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), we have articles about the concepts referred to by the terms. That wording was introduced by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Aside from the fact that this word does not exist in any language, let alone English, this is a blatant attempt to legitimize a whimsical word used exclusively in relation to HIV and AIDS (Occasionally in reference to the Holocaust).  ringe  | original research | neologism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:F||WP:POV||WP:OR||WP:NEO)