Deletion of Climategate scandal

Comment: Here's the background. We already have an article, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which has been the target of a great deal of POV-pushing and abusive sockpuppetry. There have been numerous arguments to move the article to "Climategate" or "Climategate scandal", all of which have been rejected because such titles would be blatantly POV and are expressly disallowed by policy (for the same reason we don't have "Attorneygate" or "Rathergate"). There have also been numerous attempts to wedge in unsourced and poorly sourced speculation, in violation of the |biographies of living persons policy. Wikidemon is one of a clique of right-wing editors who objects to the restrictions of BLP and NPOV. Rather than pursuing dispute resolution, and in full knowledge that what he's doing isn't allowed, he's created this POV fork as a sort of BLP and NPOV-free zone. It's one of the most blatant acts of bad faith I've ever seen on Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as a POV-fork. The content is arranged differently here, but is basically the same as the other article. The title is blatant POV ("scandal"). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, |not the news, a blog, news-agregator or a tabloid... We are not here to describe speculation in the media, but to describe facts - which unfortunately at the moment are sparse, since no investigation has yet been concluded. Outside of presenting notable reactions - we will have to await the results of investigations - and we have no |deadline (which seems to irk people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: while ''I don't agree with the title'' I think the idea of the page is what is important.  The editors at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident have repeatedly pronounced that that article is about the hacking incident and have been committed to removing material that falls outside the scope of the hacking incident.  As a result, that article has a ''very'' strong focus on the hacking incident that really isn't reflective of the weight it is given in .  Therefore it makes sense that a page should be devoted to covering the public controversy (as opposed to a controversy about the science) / fall out that since ensued.  Its clear that this page should be kept.  I also am befuddled with editors who, on one hand, wish to restrict the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident page to the hacking incident yet come here and call this a POV fork.  It seems fishy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)