This RfC was closed after being open for 29 days because a consensus has emerged. The RFC question is reasonably read as asking, "Should [at least some] discussion of Watts' blog be moved to the article about Watts' blog, i.e., Watts Up With That?" Many of the commenters have essentially read it that way, and so that is how I will read it, since it seems silly to entirely remove all mention of the blog from this BLP.
The consensus is not determined merely from !votes. However, note that the !votes were roughly as follows: 7 "yes", 3 "no", 2 "merge", 1 should be "handled by WP:Summary style", 1 "support" for "moderate trimming and moving of WUWT material", 2 "yes" but use summary style or merge, and 1 no but merge. Some concern was expressed that the RFC question is confusing or malformed or proposes a WP:POVFORK.
I take notice of the fact that Section 2.1 of this BLP is titled "Climate change blogging", that Section 2.1 contains two paragraphs, that Section 2.1 already has a hatnote to the main article Watts Up With That?, that Section 2.1 has been substantially edited during the course of this RFC, and that such editing included removal of a paragraph about awards.[1].
Merging the entire article into the article about the blog would require further discussion, because it was not suggested by the RFC question. The RFC question addressed only the blog, and not climate stuff more generally.
There is solid support here for reducing the size of section 2.1 about the blog. For example, it could be reduced to a couple sentences about his role as founder and supervisor, and then another couple sentences about his blog posts. Such would conform with WP:Summary Style. As for awards for blogging, that could be briefly mentioned in the aforementioned four sentences. All material removed from this article should go to the article about the blog, if it's not already there, per WP:Summary style.
Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)