Deletion of Global warming conspiracy theory (3rd nomination)

Comment: due to . This is such an absurd and obscure conspiracy theory that it does not warrant separate coverage at this length. For example, how many people on Earth really believe that all the organisations and individuals listed really have met together and conspired to make up all this peer-reviewed science and other evidence? (The United Nations (The whole of the UN??), The Bilderberg Group, The Club of Rome, Green Cross International, Al Gore, Jacques Chirac, Maurice Strong, George Soros and Mikhail Gorbachev!) This is absurd, and unworthy of such serious coverage in a serious encyclopedia. It fails  via the "Significant coverage" and "Independent of the subject" clauses, as well as lack of serious secondary sources generally
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Bad faith nomination. 86.** has done no editing, no discussion, or any attempts of improving the article in question. He asserts that it is a  fork, but when examined, the content that he is referring to is not similar. When stating that the article is a BLP violation, he doesn't give examples, but instead asserts that because people are named, it ''must'' be a violation, no matter whether references support the namings. In fact it seems as if 86.**'s nominations is purely based upon . Finally the hatted part is simply unacceptable, it ignores  and casts aspersions at his fellow editors. It is not a particularly good article, it could do with a lot of improvement, which hopefully will ensue from this nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:AGF)

Comment: what is salvageable to global warming controversy, per Judith.  Inherently pejorative title covering content that's better handled elsewhere and will inevitably be a |POV fork.  Realistically, "conspiracy theory" should be a short section in the "controversy" page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)