Deletion of Scientific data withholding

Comment: Let me help you with the .  Please look through his pages (William) and note his self proclaimed environmental activism.  An Environmental Activist editing things that have to do with the Environment is about as bad as someone who works for Exxon editing pages that have to do with Exxon.  WIlliam has too much vested in the success or failure of a POV.  I agree with
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: as POV fork/neologism and original research and |synthesis.  To the extent there is reliably sourced material there, it should be included in the relevant articles about the scientists so long as it is done in an NPOV fashion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: POV fork also violates .  Anything necessary should be in the data archiving article.  This topic most certainly should not be used to create a fork for a relatively tangential topic (global warming
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: I originally thought data archiving and data withholding should be discussed in the same article.  But they are different concepts.  Data withholding is a much greater crime against science than a lack of data archiving.  William Connelly's view of the article is affected by the fact he is closely associated with one of the examples of data withholding, Michael Mann.  They are both contributors or partners in the website, RealClimate. In accordance with , I have asked William to consider if he is too close to the subject to view it objectively
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: The author of this article has coined a phrase.  Google returns exactly one results for the phrase search "scientific data withholding".  "Scientific data archiving" returns 3,420 results! That means this article fails  as applied to neologisms, and I am convinced that this is a Wikipedia:Content forking| content fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The above seems to border on a personal attack, not to mention a serious |failure to assume AGF. Furthermore, it is not at all obvious to me what William's COI would be in this case (that he happens to be a reknowned climate expert is somehow a COI now?), and even if there were a COI, nothing in  says that an AfDs coming from someone with a COI should be rejected. There are very good reasons to delete this article. Try to deal with those and not cast aspersions on the nominator
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:COI)