Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecostructure


 * 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. Without prejudice to (re-)creating a disambiguation page in the form recommended by WP:MOSDAB  Sandstein   13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecostructure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've begun to rewrite the article. Actually, I've just re-formatted it. I hope to flesh it out more by Tuesday, if it's not deleted by then. AlexPlante (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is a stub for what may eventually become a disambiguation page. The speedy deletion template was added so quickly it must have been done by a bot. I would hope to be able to discuss this with a real human. I was motivated to create this page when a few months ago someone mentioned "ecostructure" on the "infrastructure" page. The word intrigued me, so I Googled it, and this admitedly very rough draft is essentially a result of these Google searches. AlexPlante (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any actual concrete and coherent concept being explained, here? Because the article as it stands doesn't convey one to me, a reader. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The speedy-deleting was by User:Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewrite I saw this on speedy, and had not decided what to do about it--it fit no speedy criterion, but seemed to be intended to include a number of promotionally worded sections for different things, most of them not likely to be notable. The first section should be expanded with the actual references; possibly it it is just a vogue word with no specific meaning, but I'd need to judge that after seeing a proper article.  . There is no need for a disam page unless the other aspects can be written into separate articles. I strongly support  the idea of combination articles for closely related things not each worth a separate article, but this is an  example where only the vague idea of naming something by what might seem like a fashionable variant term is in common. That does not make an article.    DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added some more material. The word has at least 4 meanings, that are described in the article.  There seems to be a 5th meaning, this time medical, but I don't seem to be able to find any good explanations for it on the web. AlexPlante (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a reference for the medical term: it's ultrasound jargon AlexPlante (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I just added new material & links, and did some reorganizing of the article. Apparently 300 people a day view the article, and I hope some of you will improve it or comment on it.AlexPlante (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I applaud AlexPlante and other authors for the recent attempts to improve the article, but at its heart it is still a discussion of multiple definitions of a word, and that word is a neologism. Thus the article runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on two counts. Articles on some of the concepts the word is said to refer to already exist, but don't use the word; new articles on the other concepts may be created, though it is not clear that this would be the proper title for any of them. Since no current articles use the term in their titles, disambiguation is not necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would make sense to move the whole thing over to the Wiktionnary? I'm not sure how to do that, or how to link to Wiktionnay article in a Wikipedia article. (This whole thing started because someone brought up the term "ecostructure" in the infrastructure article, and my original aim was to create a stub "ecostructure" article so I would link to it from the infrastructure article, and hope others would flesh out this article) AlexPlante (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You could create an Ecostructure article over at Wiktionary if you think it would help. Linking to a Wiktionary article from Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) is simple enough, you can use either  or   to get there. I would read up on their policies first though, such as Criteria for inclusion -- RoninBK T C 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Next weekend (if I have time) I'll cut and paste some of the more enclyclopedia-like paragraphs to the relevant articles, and I'll create the wiktionnary page. I hope no-one deletes the article until I have time to do this. AlexPlante (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't get back in time, you can always ask the closing admin for a copy of the article. -- RoninBK T C 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the whole thing to my sandbox AlexPlante (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: malformed article that appears to be a disambiguation page with a number of the disambiguated-to-topic-stubs bolted on. The result is a multiple-meaning-of-one-neologism-based WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Unclear if any of the 'stub-topics' are individually notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a dictionary term and neologism. AlexPlante seems to be taking a good direction with this, best of luck to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have tidied and pruned page Ecostructure into a nearly normal disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2011 (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.