Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination)

Question
1st nomination listed here mentions two previous AFD, which makes this the 5th time of nomination? Justin talk 11:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the fourth nomination. The one you linked to (May 2009) was the third nomination, even though this one claims to be the third. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's simply a problem of the article re-naming + twinkle. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of the first was "rename", but without a clear consensus to keep the article, as many of the arguments were only that it was inappropriate for an article not called a list. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it was the other way around: keep with a suggestion to rename (which was done). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The arguments do not really seem to reflect a consensus, but the stated result was "keep".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Err I linked to what is listed here as the 1st nomination, which apparently was actually the 3rd. There are two further nominations, which makes this the 5th.  So isn't repeatedly nominating the same article for deletion after multiple keeps disruption? Justin talk 10:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN. Obviously by the level of debate, it hasn't been friviously nominated, whatever the outcome. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is the 4th nomination, not the 5th. If that's wrong, please provide an appropriate pointer.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't beat a dead horse
This article has been through at least 3 AfDs let it go or it will seem like a witch hunt trying to censor the opposition. I don't agree with them either but it would be better to spend your time trying to find better arguments to counter their claims or pointing out other ways the environment is being polluted and how much damage it is doing. There are many more conclusive things to point out to the public or try to present the data about global warming or5 climate change in a more organized way. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)