Deletion of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)

Comment: This approach fails  and  and can't be fixed. We have articles on climate change and the notable opinions and theories. They should be sourced reliably and give appropriate weight. This per-person list format just allows any Tom, Dick or Harry who claims to be a "scientist" of some kind to have equal weight in the debate as someone who might actually know a thing or two about climate change. It is also extremely fragile as opinions do change yet the format allows the cherry-picking of any disenting quote made in the past without any means to remove them based on a more recent quote (highlighting the  issues involved -- if sourced to a third-party list, we would have a compilation-date we could mention). As noted by others, it breaks all of our policies in some way, though even if we managed to eliminate the WP:V and WP:NOR issues, the approach just breaks  and there's no way to fix that IMO with this format. It is for this reason that it becomes a POV fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:WEIGHT||WP:OR||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: The article is very well resourced, so it would pass . But the the title is awkward and the contents are repetitive, with multiple versions of the same conclusion. I would sooner fix those problems than throw the whole thing away
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The list's inclusion criteria inherently demands |original research and the list is a potential  disaster because the editors are charged with defining what exactly "mainstream" "scientific" "assessment" is and who, precisely, is in opposition to it. The IPCC consensus statement, for all that's great about it, is only a proxy for what a "true" "mainstream scientific assessment" is, and Wikipedia is not equipped to figure out the actual mainstream scientific assessment. Additionally, the criteria for what makes one a "scientist" (No true Scotsman|always a conundrum and essentially a fallacy) who "opposes" a scientific fact is something that Wikipedia editors are not equipped to delineate. Our job is not to interpret a person's entire outlook and complete opinion. As it is, a grand total of zero |reliable sources exist for this particular topic. Sure various motivated anti-scientific groups (that are not reliable sources, mind you) publish lists that certain editors may think are evidence that such lists can be made, but attempts to compile these very lists have been  so fraught (and, in at least one case, been subject to court orders for libel) that we are essentially opening ourselves up for BLP violations by labeling any person with this stigma. As it currently stands, there are not reliable demarcation lists for this particular idea in the same way that there isn't a reliable way to find a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of evolution or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS or a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the 9/11 attacks. I think that a better idea is to write articles on the actual published lists of the anti-environmentalist political action committees. Write an article about the The Heartland Institute's http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/Article.cfm?artId=21977 controversial list. Document it in the same way A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|other famous published lists of so-called scientists who disbelieve scientific facts have been handled. Just dispense with this attempt at original research and libeling living humans as though Wikipedia can peer into their souls or really evaluate what their "oppositional status" "truly" is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:BLP||WP:RS)

Comment: with my comments from the 1st AfD'': 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: We don't need POV-based lists on Wikipedia. This article is questionable regarding , because it is an obvious attempt to advocate, not to just provide information, and  because it is compiled based on the creator's own judgement and interpretation of the scientists' views. It is probably not in a dire breach of the policies, but has way too many problems and potential problems. In addition it is simply not encyclopaedic, because it's based on a POV criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: With issues centered around ,  (there have been concerns that the list of "scientists" is mostly made up of non-climate scientists and that credentials have been inflated), ,  (it's a directory, wikipedia articles should not be) there is absolutely no way to salvage this article. Would have commented sooner but just noticed the AfD now
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:DUE||WP:NOT)

Comment: Violation of , , , and . This also misrepresents who these people actually are, as many are not climatologists. It wrongly synthesizes people with a veriety of opinions into this catch-all conglomeration. Per {{user|Johnuniq}}, this is only  in taking a single quote from these people and does not take recent changes into account
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:PSTS||WP:SYNTH||WP:UNDUE||WP:OR)

Comment: unlike |previous AfDs, history of the article has shown this to be in fact a |POV and |soapbox magnet; pardon the mixed metaphors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC||WP:NPOV||WP:SOAP)

Comment: Please mind .  There is no need to start attacking editors who disagree with you about the deletion of a deeply flawed article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: or '''rename''', seems to be a |POV fork, but perhaps if some alternative suggestions can be implemented it can become more neutral
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Not seeing any new arguments here in favor of deletion. Criteria for inclusion is very strict, built from prior consensus. Viewpoints and individuals discussed are sourced and noteworthy, and total elimination of any description of AGW dissent would be a |disservice to the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: This article, as conceived, is always going to have serious problems with .  Moreover, it constitutes a violation of , inasmuch as it attempts to overrepresent the significance of a minority viewpoint contrary to the scientific consensus.  ("Anthropogenic climate change isn't real!  Look at this long list of scientists who oppose it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:WEIGHT)

Comment: Nobody has yet answered how this list is not violating  and . This is a major problem
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: Huh, bunch of wikipedians interpreting some quotes and categorizing scientists accordingly? Ridiculous. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS)

Comment: Because the list specifically sets out that it is a list of scientists who have made quotes regarding their stance on the subject. While I'd argue that some or many entries could very well be , none of them are  since they are sourced quotes (at least I'd hope that every single quote has a reference), only the decision to connect those quotes with a set opinion would violate , though in many cases the quotes explicitly state the position of the scientist in question
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I agree with other users above that call for this to be delete per the policies they site.  I just read this and it doesn't look like a list, it looks more like an article that needs a lot of work done to it.  There are way too many quotes made, why?  Shouldn't the  be enough?  As has been said above, though this list/article claims to be 'scientist' a lot of them are not scientist.  I think if this is to remain then it needs to be rewritten to follow .  With what I checked into, a lot of the entries listed are people who have written books not that they are scientist.  I think the policies that are not being followed, (ie
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:LISTS)

Comment: Inherent violation of POV in structure and format, has had three chances to be cleaned up after previous AfDs, and is still exactly the same POV-pushing list of riginal research quotes promoting a fringe theory, with appeal to authority from  peacock statements about the qualifications of the people who ''once'' said something against Global Warming. A check of the talk page archives will show them going through advocacy lists for the POV this list pushes, selecting the supposed "best" from the list, and then doing original research to find a quote for the page. Violates R, , , , , and others. Furthermore, the talk page archives show numerous examples of attempts to find the most extreme quotes possible, instead of allowing any nuance to their views, e.g. Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_12#Freeman_Dyson, which makes much of this a probable |BLP violation. That the article has attracted enough POV-pushers to vote keep on it before does not mean it should not be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:OR||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:FRINGE||WP:NPOV||WP:POVFORK||WP:BLP)