Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitigation of peak oil

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 Fossil fuel phase-out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Mitigation of peak oil

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mitigation of peak oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly hopelessly out of date as it seems to assume that oil will peak due to lack of supply rather than demand.

Secondly the topic is covered much better in Fossil fuel phase-out Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Engineering, and Environment. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Merge: I think that this article actually has some very valuable information contained within it. After it has been merged, I see no issue redirecting the page to Fossil fuel phase-out, as that certainly encompasses more than just oil. Akdulj (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I will be happy to merge if that is the concensus Chidgk1 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Merge - I can help out, having worked on many energy law articles. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, the suggested Merge target is Fossil fuel phase-out, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

yes LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks, @Chidgk1: and @Bearian: for the offer of merge assistance. Definitely would be needed and greatly appreciated. Joyous! | Talk 19:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  OK if the merge is approved I will do the initial donkey work and then leave the thinking bits to you guys Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2023 (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.