Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Bears and Global Warming

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 delete. Tone 17:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bears and Global Warming[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK. It is a repetition of information at global warming, effects of global warming and polar bears. 14 of the 18 references are to wikipedia itself. Maybe at some point a sensible split can be made from Polar bears#Global warming but trying to salvage anything useful from this will be difficult. Also this is not a good name for that article as it is just an amalgamation of two separate things. So saving it as a redirect seems pointless. Polargeo (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay that sources all of its points to other Wikipedia articles. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete WP:POVFORK & poorly referenced. "Global warming and polar bears are interchangeable" should really say it all. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a proper article, although well intentioned. An article could be written on the topic, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort to do so. Probably better to have a section in Polar bear. Redddogg (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails verifiability. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Martin451 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original synthesis of WP references. GreyWyvern (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are WP:OR and WP:RS problems. Warrah (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the topic interesting and read the article, but could not learn anything from it - I have only a common knowledge of global warming, but even though, the article appeared too trivial. (technical comment - references are a disaster) Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Global Warming and Polar Bears are interchangeable" is an interesting sentence, however. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Next time it's a really hot day, I'm going to say, "That may be a sign of polar bears." Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article using wikipedia as main source.--Staberinde (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly inappropriate as a POV fork. Topic already covered adequately under polar bear and global warming/climate change. Steven Walling 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.