Deletion of Scientific dissent (2nd nomination)

Comment: clearly notable topic with substantial  coverage, as covered by FourViolas above. Article needs a partial rewrite to better reflect this range of sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Even if the topic is notable the lack of any significant content that's disjoint from Scientific consensus screams 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: Presently the article discusses several specific authors' views on dissent in science, and I think the politicization article is more appropriate where politics are involved. Galileo and Lysenko are almost straw-men here, as they often are; Galileo was right and dissented, and Lysenko was wrong and dissent was suppressed. Those incidents are in the pre-modern scientific era, and they should not be used to suggest that there is some merit in dissent from things that are presently well-established. I'm opposed to keeping the article based on  as well, because I think that dissent is not a concept applicable to the scientific method. Science can be politicized and it can be wrong, but one cannot dissent from the scientific consensus ''for a non-scientific reason'' and call that dissent "science
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)