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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and Ecological Interactions Worldwide[edit]

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

WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:NOTESSAY. This looks like a journal article or a thesis paper that was just pasted into article space, but I wasn't able to find any copyvio. If this is an important topic (Google suggests that it might be), I think the best approach would be WP:TNT. shoy (reactions) 19:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content seems either original or a copyright violation and is by the way some sort of papper/essay as the nominator said. –Lappspira (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-constructive, non-encyclopedic. The basic premise is pollution hurts the planet. The analysis seems to be by process, which is a useful approach. --Bejnar (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This current version is simply unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear example of WP:ISNOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 9 October 2015 (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.