Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination)

	List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)
	List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (4th nomination)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an inherently non-neutral WP:POVFORK with several problems related to WP:NPOV, as well as WP:UNDUE and other issues. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and salt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (nth nomination) for the next 15 values of n. We've been around this carousel about 5 million times, with no significant change in the status quo. More seriously, I don't see a bland list of references to policies to be a good argument one way or the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restrict AFD nominations to one per year For reasons expressed by Stephan Schulz above NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Or No Consensus, if you prefer. Does the nominator have any new arguments over those used in the previous nomination (and review) from October last year? --Merlinme (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - renomination only 3 months after a Keep decision, with no new arguments ? Seriously ? Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HORSEMEAT.--WaltCip (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per all the above. I would hope that nom will take the reaction to his nomination to heart.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Honestly, I have never seen the validity in retaining an article on those scientists who hold a minority point of view on a scientific matter. What is notable about them collectively ? IMO this purpose of this is to hold a group of people up to scorn for holding an unpopular POV, much as List of congressmen who believe Barack Obama wasn't born in Hawaii or List of biologists who deny evolution would. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Wikipedia notability ≠ scientific importance. Article has sufficient notability per Wikipedia standard. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is part of the problem the title of this list? It gives a characterization that is too strong for some of the scientists on the list. "List of scientists questioning the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" would be more accurate. "List of scientists who are climate-change skeptics" has the additional advantage of being much shorter. --Lambiam 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Comment This is a "hit list". It is possible that such articles are not neutral in point of view in general. Such articles may/could do little more then single people/persons out as possible targets for any number of abuses. Perhaps such lists require a policy review and amendment by the Wiki. in my opinion. That the article has been nominated for numerous deletions is an indication of an inherently flaw in the deletion process requiring perhaps administrative oversight or it is very likely we will review it yet, again. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]