Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservation and neocolonialism

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 that this is original research. WilliamH (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation and neocolonialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Appears to be OR. Reads like a college essay, arguing a thesis not made by any of the sources. LK (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with nominator.Babakathy (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nom. Interesting thesis though. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, original research. But the thesis is interesting. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above - interesting, but OR. If neeeded to preserve a search term, redirect to Neocolonialism. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (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.