Deletion of Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Comment: The list starts by a short and clear description of what "opposing mainstream scientific opinion" is, and then describes the conditions that have to be met, to "qualify" for inclusion. The quotes are there specifically to ensure that each scientist is indeed placed correctly on the page (per ), and has to be directly from the scientist (to ensure that  is in order). They have to be quotes so that we can assure that interpretation of text is kept to a bare minimum. (again  and ). All the scientists have to be notable (per otable - ie. no red-links), to ensure that we are not diverging into . All quotes have to be in reliable sources (of course) (per ). There are two common ways to view the list (which to me at least indicates that  is upheld
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BLP||WP:BLP||WP:NPOV||WP:N||WP:FRINGE||WP:RS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: An informative, clearly notable list of notable scientists.  Assists in navigation and categorization.  Is highly well-watched and policed for accuracy and .  While the view the scientists in this article have is in the minority, it is easily notable (contrary to some posts above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I'm inclined to keep. However, to evaluate the article from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy, I would like to know whether these scientists are expressing a "significant minority" or a "|fringe" position per ? As many folks know, "mainstream" is a WP term of art, contrasted with fringe. If the "mainstream" wording implies that these are fringe opinions, I can see that this could be a notable fringe. However, if these opinions constitute a "significant minority," then it is much harder to justify a separate article on a single POV. (A significant minority would cover scientific opinions that are carried well enough in peer-reviewed journals, even though they don't sway most of the audience.) So, which is it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Clearly states consensus view, so does not breach . Gives a legitimate NPOV treatment to a POV subject. Most statements come from reliable sources. Volume of statements indicates notability. The fact that this whole collection of minority views is almost certainly wrong is not grounds for deletion. Precedent for articles on minority scientific theories is established by articles in List of minority-opinion scientific theories. Could possibly rename to ''Minority opinions on global warming'' so that emphasis shifts away from individual scientists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)