Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete - non-notable idea, lacking credible sources. Appears to be largely WP:OR Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I prod-tagged this article earlier. Basically this is spam for a proposal by the CIaverton Group to drop tree seedlings from airplanes in northern China. None of the outside sources given in the article even so much as mention the idea of planting trees; they are utterly unrelated. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not an article. Geschichte (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete this one. The only citations pertinent to the subject matter are primary sources; if the project had been cited in WP:RS, the article's creator would no doubt have added such citations already. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * don't delete I disagree that it is non notable. The concept is more than simply dropping tree seedlings which would of course die.  The article proposes a detailed mechanism for dropping a mini self sustaining environment, ie a hygroscopic cell - a car tyre, a source of hygroscopic nutrient - sewage sludge, and a means of preventing same being buried in sand by means of a self erecting sand fence, which would allow any seedling to survive.   This has all been approximately costed and checked for feasibility - ie nos of planes, tyres, areas covered etc and references.  Given the disastrous soil erosion in china, the need for carbon free power generation, this is certainly notable.  OK it is only published on the Claverton Energy Group website, which has several hundred, mainly professional contributors and users, so maybe that is sufficient grounds for deletion....but there are numerous credible references within the article backing up the main calculations and findings.Engineman (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I like the idea and I hope it works out. But until third parties take notice of this proposal, it isn't Notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:22, 23 December 2009 (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.