Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature


 * 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 merge to Surveys of scientists' views on climate change. Missvain (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. The scientific article did stir up a lot of attention on the climate denial blogosphere and some routine response within the scientific literature (f.i. a one-paragraph commentary, as cited, and a commentary by Richard Tol), but has minimal coverage outside of that (opinion pieces Tol is all I could find). The article mostly duplicates information from Surveys of scientists' views on climate change, so could be merged there, but I don't think it has much use as a redirect, considering the length of the title. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the "Surveys" article Scientific papers are relatively high result on google and other sites, and more than 200 pageviews in the last month seem to suggest its marginally useful. Sadads (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

3 days ago this article was rubbish. Now one could keep it. But it was quite some work. --Hg6996 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge as suggested above as Surveys of scientists' views on climate change is not very long. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My opinion: good idea! --Hg6996 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect as above (depending on whether the additional material is considered worth adding). I actually think that this topic has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and that a standalone would thus be okay by the letter of the law, but I can't see any benefit for the reader from having it spun off like that. The paper is much better treated in context, as a subsection. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect should be the best idea, as other authors have already stated. Andol (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.