Deletion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)

Comment: we're apparently once again back to the invalid POV-fork argument.  of ''what'' content? POV fork is not just a term to throw around, they have characteristics, none of which this list falls under. The  claim is an argument that calls for  not deletion. Basically this is a  AfD. What should be considered is |notability and nothing else, and to claim that the topic-area (sceptical scientists) that the list covers isn't notable, is to me rather strange
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:POV||WP:SOFIXIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:N)

Comment: for the reasons I advanced in the previous discussion: The argument that this list constitutes original research is convincing. 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 now veiled 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.Also, as the lead makes clear, the position of the people listed here 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, because it gives undue prominence to the view of a small minority in a very controversial field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:FRINGE||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: in to Scientific opinion on climate change.  The central concept of this article is, and always will be in violation of , no matter how much cleanup is done--it is trying to demonstrate a point ("there are scientists who disagree with GW/AGW") by bringing together information that does not explicitly state the central point ("look at these people we found", instead of "here's a source that says this").  In order to not violate that guideline, an article should instead discuss the ''group of people as a whole'' using reliable sources, not attempt to demonstrate they exist by compiling a list.  Near as I can tell, Scientific opinion on climate change is a perfectly appropriate place to do this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: It seems relatively clear to me that this violates , and Wilhelm Meis in particular has presented some good arguments clarifying this point. Failing deletion, the article needs at least a clean-up to clarify more explicitly who is a scientist with ''relevant expertise'' and who is not, and the latter should not really be in the article at all (one example: "William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy"). Otherwise the title of the article seems to lend them undue credibility, violating NPOV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: the existence of this article is inherently non-neutral. Anyone who reads it is going to be left with the impression that there is a large body of respectable scientists opposing the main aspects of global warming, giving |undue weight to this tiny minority view. I know that there's a very brief explanation that these people are a tiny minority at the start of the page but that simply isn't going to be enough to counter the impression given by the walls of quotations that follow.  additionally prohibits ''an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts'' - this article is highlighting the viewpoint that the mainstream understanding of global warming is flawed. The proper, neutral way to cover the topic of the level of support that global warming receives amongst scientists is to have an article which discusses both support and opposition to the idea and gives due weight to each. If we tried to do that here by adding much more discussion of scientists who support global warming then the article would cease to be a list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and start to become something like Scientific opinion on climate change, which already exists
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: per Sandstein and Wilhelm Meis. The inclusion criteria for the list amount to |original research, the list gives undue prominence to  views, and by providing a  of comments by those listed it amounts to a .(Procedural aside. At DRV, I expressed concerns about having another AFD discussion so soon after the previous one, but the consensus at DRV was that the discussion should proceed, so I am adding my tuppenceworth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:FRINGE||WP:QUOTEFARM||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Clearly in violation of basic NPOV policies, and could never be brought within them in anything like its current form. An appalling article, probably the worst thing Wikipedia's made. It's had several AfDs which were closed as No Consensus in the hopes that it might be fixable; this only resulted in the ers chasing off anyone who was trying to suggest changes, by insisting on endless bureaucracy before any changes. Everyone knows this is a problem article, no reasonable person thinks, after 4 AfDs, that the people who have claimed ership will ever allow it to be brought in line with policy unless it's deleted. It's a Quotefarm, meant to push a signgle sifde of the devbate, by presenting arguments from one side in EXTREME detail, while forbidding the other side a response, because it's supposedly "just documenting views". And this is not going to change; it's been in this state since before the first AfD, and is only getting worse as time goes on. When an article violates basic Wikipedia policy - NPOV is one of the |five pillars - and its very nature means that it can ''never'' be brought into line with this fundamental Wikipedia policy without throwing everything out and starting over, it '''must''' be gotten rid of
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:OWN||WP:5P)

Comment: Why is this article more encyclopedic than a List of film critics who gave Moneyball a negative review or a List of congressmen who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii?  Those would be obvious violations of  and  regardless of whether or not   (like lists to the contrary, which, if they existed, would be equally in violation).  I'm still waiting for a compelling argument that those articles ''should'' exist, or that this article is any different
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:POVFORK||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)