Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exotic pollution

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Exotic pollution

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

Original research. The term isn't mentioned in any of the cited references, and the only relevant search engine hits seem to be copying the Wikipedia article. Kolbasz (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Kolbasz pointed out, the term is not found in the sources. Very likely WP:OR. --bender235 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like OR or just something someone made up one day (recently). Stalwart111 11:15, 23 November 2013 (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.