Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative Approaches to the Delimitation of the Arctic Continental Shelf


 * 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   speedy delete (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) by

Alternative Approaches to the Delimitation of the Arctic Continental Shelf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD - prod tag was removed by IP without explanation or improvements to the article. PROD rationale was "Original research. This appears to be a lawyer's brief on possible solutions to a perceived problem. May or may not make any sense (I'm not a lawyer) but it is most certainly a original research or synthesis." I agree - delete as original research/original synth. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Nice legal brief, but this isn't the place for it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. Delete it or do not delete it. Satisfy yourself please. I have spent my time to bring this rare info to specific public and now you propose to delete this encyclopaedic information. Yes, I understand you love get here articles to advertise and promote people, products and services. My article is not like this, this is very detailed information on the rare subject. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.107.126 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I can understand that the author feels discouraged but there is already an article on this at Territorial claims in the Arctic and it would be inappropriate to have another here - see WP:FORK for the policy on that. There are more articles on specific aspects of the topic. In addition, there are a number of other difficulties with the present article to do with the style which does not follow Wikipedia standards and can be difficult for users to follow, and because Wikipedia articles should not attempt to set out an individual's analysis and understanding of the issue but summarise from a neutral point of view using appropriate references as the Territorial claims in the Arctic and others articles seek to do. I suggest that the author looks at those related articles - there may be ways in which he or she thinks they might be improved and with his or her knowledge of the topic such a contribution would doubtless be useful. --AJHingston (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as fork (for the avoidance of doubt). NB Arctic shelf currently redirects inappropriately to Arctic policy of Russia. This needs putting right, but I am not sure of the best target.  --AJHingston (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Territorial claims in the Arctic, preserving history, and merging any material which is appropriate (WP:SMERGE). Although this title is not really a likely search term it would be helpful to preserve the material's history somewhere. This is very unfortunate for the present article and for the person who has put in so much knowledge and care but this article does indeed seem to be what Wikipedia calls "original research". I agree with AJHingston's other comments and that the editor would perhaps most usefully contribute to existing related articles. (BTW I have tried to resolve the Arctic shelf situation as best I can). Thincat (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Original Research. Also, is this a copyvio of http://tbplaw.com/data/ielr_2008-4.pdf ? I don't seem to be able to open this document in my browser, but it has the same title as the wikipedia article. If it is a copyvio then we shouldn't be trying to preserve it. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I managed to open the link eventually. It's a simple copyvio. Clearly a Delete. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A copyright violation is a speedy delete, and I've tagged it as such now. Good catch, Dingo1729! Dawn Bard (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.