Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land recycling


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Land recycling

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not encylepedic. Mschilz20 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: An interesting article, but entirely WP:OR. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR. Warrah (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The article is unsourced, but it is not at all clear to me that it's WP:OR.  Clicking on any of the "find sources" links above makes it abundantly clear that there are sources here and that the topic is notable.  Contrary to the nom, the subject is highly encylopedic. In retrospect, I'm surprised the article is of such recent creation. TJRC (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Land restoration, surely?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep "Not encylepedic" is not an adequate reason to start an AFD as it is begging the question. The topic has such notability that it is clear that our deletion process has not been properly followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but suggest heavy, heavy editing to ensure it meets basic standards of verifiability and neutrality. Land recycling in the UK is tracked by Defra, to me that is a very strong indicator that the topic is notable. Do not redirect to Land reclamation as it appears to be an entirely different topic. As I have had to be informed in the past "not encyclopaedic" is not a good argument for deletion at AfD as it is effectively stating "doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia because it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" without a true reason why. Guest9999 (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the link to Google news, and you see it mentioned, clicked on the link to Google book search, and you'll find more mentions of it. Searching government websites  gives thousands of results as well.   D r e a m Focus  09:52, 12 November 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.