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 no consensus. The most common opinions were: keep as a notable topic, delete as original research, merge into Mars, and merge into Global warming. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martian global warming[edit]

Martian global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

See WP:V, WP:OR, either merge, delete, or redirect to Mars--70.107.112.158 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Mars--TBCΦtalk? 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, this should be a section in Mars. Dave6 ^talk 02:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There was already a proposal to merge (which I made), so I'm not sure why the AfD was proposed before the merge discussion was completed. I'd rather the material not be deleted (clarification) be merged rather than deleted outright (end clarification) but abstain from !voting as I was the proponent of the merge. Raymond Arritt 02:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Merge and allow the information many people are adding to remain so the article has a chance to become fuller instead of constantly deleting valid information. Rameses 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mars. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mars. Information seems valid, but it makes more sense to me to have this as a paragraph in the Climate section of the Mars encyclopedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Why is this even in AfD? The nom should have been more precise as to delete, merge, or redirect. This should be in the Climate section of Mars. Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Mars. --K.Z ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 09:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely not delete or redirect, and do not merge. The Mars article is currently already long. This notable issue deserves its own article and this article stands a good chance of getting longer soon. Many good sources and external links. I see no violation of WP:OR and WP:V. PeaceNT 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into...well, if Mars is getting too big, why not Atmosphere of Mars? Some sections from the Mars article (such as Climate) can also be brought into there, fleshing out that article nicely. I don't think this issue is significant enough for it's own article right now, but in the future, if this particular issue does become so, it can be forked out again. Just a thought. --UsaSatsui 16:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not enough info to merit its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs)
• delete or merge - there is almost no real content here; this is last-gasp nonsense from the solar variability people which is so non-respectable that mainstream solar people (Solanki) won't even touch it William M. Connolley 19:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • May as well point out that Mr William Connolley himself is a climate modeler (potential interest with article). SYSS Mouse 03:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep may seem silly... but Mars is 62K and given that talk of climate change and global warming is all the rage these days, it's a curiousity. Can't be systemically biased in favour of that one blue rock called Earth. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, because we wouldn't want to offend all those people living on Mars, or present Neptunians with an Earth-centric view of Martian life. --UsaSatsui 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That rock is not blue: it is the water that coated the rock that make it appears blue. :pSYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That should be "that makes it appear blue" while we're pointing out obvious stuff. :)CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete While it may be verifiable, an observation for three years does not show anything worthwhile of an article. SYSS Mouse 03:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the whole premise of the article violates NPOV. Selket ^Talk 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain that, please. --UsaSatsui 15:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article exists solely to advance the position that global warming is due to solar and not human activity. --Selket ^Talk 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...you do realize this article is about Mars, right? --UsaSatsui 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge at the very least): This subject is not notable. See WP:Notability. There are NO scientific articles directly related to "Martian global warming." By creating such an article, and by giving evidence that was never published in a scientific journal, this article also violates wikipedia's policy of no original research. See WP:NOR. This article has NO content (the content of the title is almost as informative of the content in the "text"). If people believe that the one sentence of this article merits some note in an article (even though it violates wikipedi policy), then merge it with Mars or Atmosphere of Mars, or both. Better yet, create an article such as Climate of Mars; this topic is notable and is an embarassing gap in wikipedia Mars series. Furthermore, this stub can not be expanded to an article because there is no published source of material relating to this subject. Finally, the title of this article is very deceptive. Lunokhod 18:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Given that talk of climate change and global warming is of huge interest these days, it's worth having pages like this which will be among the most viewed on Wikipedia. Having well read articles and both sides of the debate will promote Wikipedia and give it more relevance. Brittainia 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Climate of Mars, which seems to have just been started and needs a lot of work. Unless that article is to be deleted, this content would belong there, and if this proves relevant, it could be split off again. Mars is too big to add all of this in detail. Atmosphere of Mars is about the content of the atmosphere, which is not directly related to the climate (any more than we think of air and weather as linked on Earth). Rigadoun (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested "Atmosphere" because I would suggest merging "Climate" into "Atmosphere" as well, since climate is a function of the atmosphere. --UsaSatsui 16:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no. On Earth, ground and oceans also play a major role in the climate system, and I suspect ground does on Mars.--Stephan Schulz 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Details. I wasn't defending my suggestion anyway, just explaining it...merging to "Climate" is fine by me. --UsaSatsui 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Climate of Mars. Mars is already too long and it fits much better into the climate article. Oren0 20:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly merge to Climate of Mars. I've considered improving the article, but I see no way to do it substantially. About the only verifiable fact is that the southern ice cap has shrunk over the last 3 Martian years, possibly due to dust storms. That is not worth an article by itself. All the rest is speculation with no reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz 22:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see why it needs to be merged. This is more about political expediency among the Wikipedia members that want to stifle climate debate. This is in case anyone draws a parallel between Mars and Earth. The article is primarily about Mars. Just because it is inconvienient, it doesn't make it less interesting. Leave it alone. Mixino1 10:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Climate of Mars. It's the best place to put it. MER-C 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no "global warming" on Mars. Instead there is climate change of unknown magnitudes and unknown directions of temperature change on numerous time scales.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jespley (talk • contribs).
• Delete - non-noteable biased unscientific speculation designed to mislead people trying to understand the Earth Global Warming evidence. WAS 4.250 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any valid sourced claims into Climate of Mars. -- Scientizzle 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the valid sourced claims of regional Martian climate change are already in Climate of Mars. Everything else falls under "Lack of verifiable information from reliable sources" Mishlai 02:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - i agree with Mishlai - Climate of Mars already contains the sourced information - the rest is at best speculation, ruled out by WP:OR --Kim D. Petersen 16:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• smerge Smerge - it's OR by synthesis. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with global warmingKeep For those wondering why this is up for deletion I would like to explain a little about the edit wars around global warming which I mistakenly wondered into. There is a lot of ill fealing around the subject of global warming, and the result is groups of people who are simply deleting what others enter without comment. When there is debate it is almost impossible to find consensus on either the smallest issue (See Hockey stick controversy & Hockey stick controversy II. I'm probably totally out of my depth! There are legitimate views being silenced and numerous complaints of not adhering to WP:NPOV - If anyone with a neutral stance on global warming can help both sides work to improve the various articles you will find it hard work but rewarding! Mike 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it should be part of the global warming article, unfortunately that is an impossibility given the current climate - hence keep the article because it is substantiated and is an important additional piece of evidence (which would just get deleted from global warming) Mike 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not worth an article in its own right and not really notable as a separate topic. --BozMo talk 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Climate of Mars. Both articles are quite short, and the global warming topic really is about the Martian climate. So unless either article gets ridiculously long (like the main Mars article), this is best being a topic within the Climate article. -Kain 15:42, 23 February 2007 (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.