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. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biological footprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Some editor's misconception of ecological footprint Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a fork of existing content at Ecological Footprint. Possibly redirect as well, this seems a plausable search term. I'd vote merge if there was valid (sourced) material to move over, there isn't, so delete and redirect. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is a discussion rather than a "proper" encyclopaedia article, and it is not a commonly used term so a rediect is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 1 July 2011 (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.