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

Comment: It is quite a stretch to apply a single stereotypical "List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" to a group who holds a wide variety of opinions on a wide spectrum of "opposition" (as opposed to disagreement--a quite different issue even the title is blatantly  ) with ''certain'' scientific assessments. Many of the scientists support "other" mainstream and peer-reviewed scientific assessments.  Claiming it's a ''majority-held'' scientific viewpoint might be debated (and is in separate WP articles, but that's not the phrase the title uses.  It is useless to try to stuff a cadre of scientists into a one-size-fits-all title like this one.  What I think the current discussion will illustrate is how it is impossible to delete articles once inserted regardless of how tenuous the proposition it purports to try to address.  Might as well call it "List of scientists supporting different scientific assessments of global warming"--at least that one doesn't require an OR/POV personal definition of terms
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I do believe that this article has POV and OR issues, but I don't believe that those issues are inherent in the subject matter; they can be fixed.  I don't see why this page is any more  or  than any number of lists of controversial subject matter, as noted above.  Overall, I find the deletion arguments to be unconvincing and I don't see what has changed since the previous AfDs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The good-faith intentions of the article are not achievable without extreme  and . First, a Wikipedian editor has selected a quote that they think justifies inclusion in this list; no |secondary source may be known with an analysis of the scientist's beliefs and with a conclusion justifying inclusion in this list. Second, there is no |verification that the scientist has not later repudiated the statement (people change their mind, particularly scientists upon viewing new data). Third, the lead claims that the list shows scientists who have opposed one of three principle conclusions; however, many of the quotations appear to have no connection with the particular IPCC conclusion (the scientist may very well oppose the conclusion, but it is up to the reader to infer that without verification
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:SECONDARY||WP:V)

Comment: Not a BLP problem, useful and encyclopedic.  I see no OR problem.  The synth problem is pretty much the same problem we have with most lists and categories--what to include and not is rarely published elsewhere.  So a list of Jewish Inventors (for example) can require some editorial thought, but not so far as to be a violation of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)