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

Comment: I'd argue that being "denialist" is hardly  (and is likely to become even less so as time passes)...but if that's too POV, then simply because this is, in my opinion, an encyclopediatic list, provided  is stripped out
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:OR)

Comment: nominator confuses "minority" with |"fringe". Although I don't think it's a very good article, I can't see much point deleting it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Echoing other statements,  is often misused to omit opposing information, which itself would be in violation of . Lists in no, way, shape, or form, are endorsements of the viewpoints. Denial of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is a notable and growing topic. Personally disagreeing with the views expressed by the scientists in question does not make the fact that the views exist any less notable. And  is the ruling principle of what happens to articles on WP, not the near-religious and overzealous application of a half-dozen policies (that consensus can overide at any time) in effort to get rid of something you personally don't agree with. The consensus the last three times has been the same
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV||WP:CONS)

Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=455262043&oldid=455164323 This seems to be |canvassing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASSING)

Comment: If the article is kept, someone will need to figure out how to rename it in such a way as to adhere to , as the current title is extremely problematic. As for the comments above... well, thank God I'm commenting here instead of trying to close this mess of an AFD. If this inches to No Consensus, please for the love of all that is holy consider an RFC to sort some of these issues out - as the issues cited as reasons for deletion (QUOTEFARM, Original Research, NPOV, etc) are all going to still be there once the debate ends. Don't let this sit another two years before fighting it out again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: as per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The list itself is  and there's no way for it not to be. No one but a Wikipedia editor has ever put together a list like this. Additionally, it's very doubtful that many of these names belong on the list. I see no policy-based arguments in favor of keeping this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: for (1)  concerns—"opposing the mainstream scientific assessment" can mean disagreements over a huge number of details. Clearly an attempt to draw a net as wide as possible in order to pigeonhole people, (2)  concerns—there are articles describing this controversy in detail e.g. global warming controversy, but this list is a collection of quotes from a single perspective, and (3)  concerns—the criteria that anyone who has ever published a paper in natural sciences is a qualified commentator on climatology is rather thin. I'd like to see a |reliable source that has assembled such an "opposition list" based on a similar enough criteria. Although I recommend removing this list from Wikipedia for the above reasons, the list of quotes may actually be appropriate at Wikiquote
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT||WP:POVFORK||WP:LISTN||WP:RS)

Comment: I've tried to avoid looking at this article and the debates about it (because I make it a rule to avoid getting embroiled in disputes over the substance of controversial topics that I care about in real life), but today I broke my own rule and looked -- and I was appalled at what I saw, solely from the standpoint of Wikipedia policy. This is a work of |original research and a . It does not belong in Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:QUOTEFARM)

Comment: this page is problematic for several reasons. A list of this sort, especially with quotes, is always going to give the impression that there is a large well-supported minority which does not think humans are causing climate change, which gives |undue weight to that position. The paragraph at the beginning pointing out that the vast majority of scientists don't agree with these opinions is not going to redress the balance and the reader is going to be left with a misleading impression. Secondly there are problems with original research. The entries in this list are by and large sourced to statements made by the individuals concerned and not to reliable secondary sources which describe the individual as opposing the scientific consensus. It is therefore up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether a certain statement means the individual is opposing the scientific consensus on global warming and that is not a decision we should be making. Fixing this would require most of the list to be removed and then re-added when someone can source it, which is little different from deletion. Finally there are BLP concerns. If the statements quoted here do not accurately reflect the position of the individual, the individual has changed their mind or the individual disagrees that they are opposing the mainstream scientific assessment then the list is violating BLP. This is a particular danger of using primary sources. Being seen as a climate change denier could certainly damage a scientist's career.There are two other important concerns I have which don't necessarily require deletion of the page. The first is that the scope of the list is overly broad. Anyone who disagrees with the IPCC report could potentially be included, and people who deny that humans are causing climate change at all are lumped in with people who merely question the accuracy of climate models. Secondly many of the people in the list do not work within fields relevant to climate change (mathematicians, astronomers, nuclear physicists, optics specialists, mining geologists etc) and including them is misleading
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: A |battleground article pure-and-simple that tries to pigeonhole people into an "opposition" category that is only defined by what it is not. Would it be appropriate to have an article on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of gravity or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of electromagnetism or List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of meteorology? That there is a media-hyped controversy over the broader topic of global warming is fact that is addressed well elsewhere. That there exist ostensible "scientists" who have various opinions on the matter is not surprising. That Wikipedia is trying to determine who does and does not fit such a characteristic is well-beyond the capabilities of the amateur hour that passes for editorial guidance here. Special:Contributions/69.86.225.27|69.86.225.27
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BATTLE)

Comment: Giving this its own article, particularly with the extensive quoting, is giving |undue weight to a fringe theory. As well, the topic is so broad that such a list will inevitably be (and is) |synthesis, both because of the grouping of these individuals together under one opinion and because of the |interpretations of their primary-source writings. (BLP is an issue as well - because we're interpreting these individuals' writings of our own accord, we may very well be labeling people as opposing science who do not actually do so.) Warden's argument that this article is part of a set actually highlights why this ''doesn't'' need to be a separate article: dissent should be covered in the other articles, where it can be properly contextualized
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: This statement in the lead explains exactly why the article is  and  and has no place at Wikipedia: "{{xt|This article is an attempt to list notable scientists who have made statements in disagreement...}}" (and removing that statement would not fix the problem which is accurately described by the statement). Instead of editors combing through everything a scientist has said, articles should be based on |reliable secondary sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:SECONDARY)