Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoethics: theory, principles, problems Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geoethics:_theory,_principles,_problems

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoethics: theory, principles, problems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable academic book with very small circulation (300 in Russian, 1000 in English). Pichpich (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. The references describe the field and content but do nothing to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There appear to be significant chunks of text lifted directly from other sources (eg. [1] and [2]). The copyright status of the whole text is suspect and it may be a close translation from the Russian monograph itself at [3]. Lithopsian (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by the author, in all innocence. Still, CSD G12 is probably the right response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean delete - articles about monographs usually entail undue synthesis, as this one does too. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unduly massive coverage of a single, apparently not notable source. I'd suggest that a fair bit of the content could be used to expand the sadly stubbish Geoethics article, though.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn book. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional spam/OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:12, 27 October 2016 (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.