Deletion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)

Comment: The vague argument that there are  violations is not backed by facts (in fact it is contradicted). The way that  has (and is) vetted by this list, is by validating that a direct quote (from the scientist him/her-self) is directly in opposition to one of the three consensus criteria, this by itself meets BLP.... but the editors of the list has always gone further ... we've verified that no statements could be found that contradicted the quote, or that the quote, seen in a larger context, may have been out of character for the scientist. The scientists are all required to be notable (by wikistandards), so that a larger context can be verified against (per ). Finally it has always been policy to remove people from the list, iff there was any doubts on their inclusion, until such time as a discussion showed consensus on the addition. The main problem that people have with this list, seems to be one of |"i don't like it".. but there is a significant encyclopedic navigation purpose served by the existance of it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP||WP:LSC||WP:IDONTLIKE)

Comment: You can be critical of views without "opposing the mainstream scientific assessment". It smacks of "You're either with us, or against us", and "McCarthyism". What next? "List of mainstream scientists who believe in a god?", "List of scientist who criticise science?". None of these are encyclopaedic, and look like they fail  
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: Given the criteria it is hard to see how this list could be of any encyclopedic value, categorizing living persons in such a fashion is not allowed per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: All  and .  Contrary to assertion of the lists' title, climate research publishes changing conclusions regarding scope, impact, cause, etc.  There are ranges of opinions and without an authoritative source of which opinion conflicts with the mainstream scientific assessment or exactly what the mainstream scientific assessment is, inclusion on "The List" is a pure fabrication by WP.  Seriously, should every climate scientist that's had a paper rejected by the journal Nature be on this list?  This reeks of a Nixonian "enemies list" where inclusion is based on only the opinion of WP editors.  It's a blatant WP:BLP violation as the topic is so broad, it would include virtually every scientist including the "It's worse than we thought" scientists, which are strangely absent
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Categorization of people in the encyclopedia ''must'' be based on simple, precise and unambiguous criteria that is free of all controversy and requires no consensus whatsoever. This is not a list, it's a coatrack and a biased shame vehicle with nebulous and vague requirements for membership. If a scientist has valid reasons to disagree with some criteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should they be included there as well, to punish them for having a slightly different opinion? It's bad enough that as a community we can't get our shit together regarding our systemic biases and complete lack of neutrality when dealing with certain topics and people we dislike, now we have to actually showcase them in a list? A list that has a complex inclusion criteria and disclaimer at the top (because what else can one call that), and that's been at AFD six times, no less. Delete, as a BLP vio, for failing ,  or anything else. This article should not exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: None of the  comments explain why using Wikipedia as the host for this list is necessary. And the kind of Kremlinology exhibited above in the case of Judith Curry (making inferences from subtleties in her non-response to someone else's report) convinces me that this is indeed 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:OR)

Comment: Basically, per arguments along the line of those made by Noren and others.  Most lists that we have are self-explanatory.  Every criteria in this particular list here is sourced, but examining people's quotations to try to classify them on to this list is classic .  Also the listing of criteria is not exhaustive... there are other bullets in the http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm Third Assessment Report summary which contrarians could disagree with.  This article has always been problematic for exactly that reason... and how do you deal with converted contrarians like Richard A. Muller who have said things opposing consensus in the past but now explicitly endorse it?  You have to make some sort of an arbitrary decision in a lot of places.  And lists shouldn't work that way
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: Past AFD's are rather irrelvant.  What matters is strength of argument in light of existing policies.  Quotes to comply with  are in the references section.  It has been '''repeatedly stated in the past''' that anyone who finds some specific quote does not pass BLP muster, that ed should instantly delete that specific entry.  So we have a correction mechanism (applying BLP on name by name basis with careful evaluation) and a process by which to do that .  Wholesale protection of a battle-gutted version of the article is neither of those things.  AIN'T BROKE, the proposing ed just didn't have the patience to follow established procedure and that's what this is about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:ARBCC)

Comment: A BLP nightmare with the names in, the current version is almost speediable as no content. Prohibiting future nominations is also against |this policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: per , . Inclusion criteria require far too much analysis to be valid for a Wikipedia list article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as  and a  violation. The extremely precise consensus in the lede (''The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century ... the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100'') is fictional. Many professional climate scientists disagree slightly with those numbers. Even the IPCC (in their last report) would be climate change sceptics according to this ridiculous  definition. -- Special:Contributions/101.119.28.133|101.119.28.133
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:BLP||WP:OR)

Comment: Agree with FreeRangeFrog (22:14, 30 December 2013), Huntster (08:30, 31 December 2013), DHeyward (11:18, 31 December 2013). Violates /// and /. The inclusion criteria is pure SYN (that gives undue weight to the editor-chosen subject matter), criteria created by editors rather than criteria that is clearly worth noting and including in an encyclopedia. The article was created when there was no indication that the subject deserved the special attention of creating such a list article, and even today the related articles still do not demonstrate that the attention is deserved (let alone references demonstrating it is deserved). (If responding, please review  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NPOV||WP:FRINGE||WP:NOT||WP:BLP||WP:SYN||WP:CONLEVEL||WP:FOC)

Comment: Problematic in its very essence for reasons of   and . The ridiculously contorted inclusion criteria tell us this is going to be a bad article right from the start
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:OR||WP:COATRACK)