Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-benefits of climate change mitigation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep didn't happen speedily due to timing, not an issue with the !votes as such. AfD should not be used for cleanup Star   Mississippi  01:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Co-benefits of climate change mitigation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

(see below, step 2/3 of nomination were done 16:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC))

The article has these issues: 1) the subject is not notable; 2) the article reads more like a whitepaper or concept discussion rather than anything meriting an encyclopedia entry—at most, the topics discussed could be integrated into other existing, notable articles; 3) it is fundamentally a promotion piece. —Ryanaxp (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: This entry seems to not have been set up in a way that transcludes it into AfD logs. Could you please make sure you've followed the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion ? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, leaning to Speedy Keep. References clearly show that the subject has been extensively discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The nominator has not explained why the subject isn't notable despite meeting the definition of notability in WP:GNG. The nom speculates that it could me merged into other notable articles but hasn't named any possibilities. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The information in this article should be incorporated as a subheading under the article of the document that defines it—IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. It is not sufficiently independently referenced other than as a constituent of that paper. —Ryanaxp (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report isn't the document that defines it. IPCC reports are secondary/tertiary documents that summarize previously published research. That's how the IPCC works. The fact that the IPCC discusses a concept means that the concept was already defined and used in other sources. The IPCC happens to be the most authoritative source on climate change so it's frequently named by other documents that discuss co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep being worth billions or maybe trillions of dollars and many many lives the subject is notable. If there are other problems with the article they can be fixed. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not the appropriateness and notability of the information in the article that is proposed to be deleted, rather, but that such information is properly a subheading under the article for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. —Ryanaxp (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep article cites more than enough high-quality sources to show notability. Removed mention of AR4 from the first sentence as inappropriate inline attribution of common definition. Subsequent IPCC report have assessed this body of literature too. Femke (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) (16:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC) changed to speedy)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.