Deletion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

Comment: I was about to close this but would prefer to voice my opinion as an argument rather than as a "supervote". The argument that this list constitutes original research is compelling. In the light of , a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research. The reference to Wikipedia's notability guideline as a basis for inclusion (a standard not to my knowledge used by any reliable source) is further indication of this. In addition, it is not clear how the topic of "which scientists oppose the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming?" (beyond the general topic of climate scepticism) is even notable. It's not immediately clear from the article that it has been covered, as such, in reliable sources. In addition, as the lead makes clear, the position is broadly speaking a fringe position in climate science, and therefore covering the people who hold it separately, at this level of detail, raises serious  and  concerns. The "keep" opinions are unpersuasive, because they mostly do not address the problem of engaging in original research when making controversial lists of living people, and frequently consist only of |arguments to avoid such as appeals to usefulness or alleging bad intentions on the part of other editors. On this basis, I recommend that the discussion, in its current state, be closed as "delete" based on the strength of arguments
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE||WP:POVFORK||WP:ATA)

Comment: Clearly a notable and encyclopedic topic - it is useful and interesting to see who disagrees with the mainstream view of global warming, and what arguments these people have put forward in published and reliable sources.  argument is nonsense, because this article is not advocating a position or point of view; it is simply a rigorously sourced list.  argument is also nonsense for the same reason - a list is not advancing a position, it is just a list.  violation is not an issue as long as everything in the list is sourced.  is a behavioural guideline, not a reason for deletion. The list could perhaps be cleaned up in places - and personally I am not a fan of the title - but that is not grounds for deletion either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:SYNTH||WP:BLP||WP:BATTLEGROUND)

Comment: This article is a .  Any minor opposition can be described in the relevant articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)