Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecology of Borneo

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of Borneo

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

This seems to have been some good faith educational experiment, but the text is completely lacking focus, not being about the topic, but general aspects of ecology or some particular aspects of Malaysian Borneo only. I see nothing useful in there worth keeping, so is better to delete to enable a fresh start. ELEKHH^T 08:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 09:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid I agree with nom. There were no fewer than 3 lists of "References" - I've cut one of them - and a lot of totally irrelevant material. What's left after a quick look is 2 school essays (there were 3 but the human culture essay was even less relevant) on aspects of diversity with reference to Malaysia. Unfortunately neither of them really focus on Borneo, nor on ecology, and it would be an Augean Stable-cleaning task to make an article out of it. A sad but clear case requiring (WP:TNT) a clean restart. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Chiswick Chap. An article on the topic is needed but it would be better to start from scratch. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:TNT. Now, it is not much more than word salad. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--WP:TNT. —Theo polisme 21:28, 19 December 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.