Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental Conservation Right


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Environmental Conservation Right

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of two articles (along with Conservation Property Right) by the user who's main source is Jaime Ubilla. I believe there to be a WP:COI given the editing from WP:SPAs. I think that the articles verge on WP:G11 as they do not have any real secondary sources and both seem to be so heavily essay-based that it would be difficult to turn into an encyclopedic article Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  23:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. This appears to be a legit novel feature ("doctrine", I guess) but ultra-obscure and applicable only in civil law.  It's hard to establish any context or importance from the content of the page, which was plopped into wikipedia from another document format.  There's no assertion of notability.  The SPA creator doesn't help the case.  BTW I see that this article and Conservation Property Right are virtually identical right now.  --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON. It is a novel concept introduced into Chilean law. It will take some time to see if it garners significant notice and can fulfill WP:GNG at some later time (ten years?). --Bejnar (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2017 (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.