Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Repurposing


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Repurposing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like plain, nearly unsourced Original research. No indication of notabilty The Banner talk 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, because environmentalists could use these examples! --Highway 231 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a guide book or collection of idea's. The Banner talk 21:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I will find reference links to secure the notability of this page. I've found lots of examples, so now what I gotta do is find some more reference links to this! --Highway 231 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. As stated, this appears to be entirely composed of original research, and as pointed out, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or Redirect to Reuse, where it is already mentioned. I agree that this article has a lot of well-intentioned yet unsourced original research into repurposing in the environmental/conservation field. There are also many different kinds of repurposing, Repurposing (broadcasting) and Drug repositioning, for instance. Google searches show evidence of use of this term in the environmental field, but I cannot say I've found solid secondary surveys of the practice needed for notability. It is a verifiable term and a plausible search term, so a redirect to Reuse seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Update SpinningSpark's source finds have convinced me there are enough reliable sources out there to satisfy notability and upon which to base a reasonable article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep . I found another reference to cite, lets find some more! --Highway 231 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC) duplicate vote struck. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some more references have been ADDED. --74.162.159.239 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Highway 231, could you take care to log in in time? Thank you. The Banner talk 21:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it sure does seem like it has improved with references after all this time. --Highway 231 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No really. I just checked most sources and I am not impressed. Yes, people are creative but it does not anything to the notability of this article. (Hmmm, and most social networking sites like o.a. Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest are not regarded reliable sources to prove notability) The Banner talk</i> 23:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those added sources are reliable, and nothing has changed that addresses the fundamental problems of the article. Also, Highway 231, users are not supposed to comment with multiple votes.  It would be helpful to the discussion if you removed your redundant, bolded "Keep" votes.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * NEW IDEA FOR CHANGE: How about we merge contents from Upcycling and Downcycling into this, and KEEP Repurposing as a stand-alone article, seeing as environmentalism motivates me to put emphasis on importance for Wikipedia articles! --Highway 231 (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, that would be a waste of two proper articles to keep one bad article. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that I keep saying we should "keep" this, but now I have a new plan. Even if it means going all the way to PLAN Z, my MacGyver-like tactics of educating people on this REPURPOSING subject is such, that I even made a new category: Category:Repurposing, and this is why I have now figured that maybe we identify this article for deletion as a stop-gap measure since some alternative approach on this subject had yet-to-be-determined for Wikipedia guidelines; in which my recent emphasis on stop-gap measures as a subject has also been involved in my research.  Some might say we have original research, but I'm finding sources to confirm it too.  The recycling subject is so important to me, this is why I am doing what it takes to ensure validation too.  So maybe we could indirectly convert article into category somehow. --Highway 231 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For educating people, you have to go to Wikiversity. Here we describe what is important, not individual projects. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK then, lets propose we move this page to Wikiversity. I think maybe we should archive this page, maybe as a draft.  Or, why don't we create a Wikia city about repurposing (or recycling in general with this as a page), and copy all text, and re-upload all images of this onto it.  Shall we?  Because I like using Wikia since it can serve as a "loophole" to Wikipedia's policy against original research. --Highway 231 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, we have procedures and it is not okay to circumvent them. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 03:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, a draft has just been made, Draft:Repurposing. This will be a stop-gap until we find a more appropriate Wiki to put it on. --Highway 231 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Now we can delete the Wikipedia version of this page, or maybe merge somewhere, or redirect to Reuse. Because now I made a near-identical Wikia version of the page. --Highway 231 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You know that your Wikia-fork is a copyright violation by not adhering to the license under which Wikipedia works? And secondly, we have nothing to do with Wikia. They have no influence of Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This might be a topic worth including in Wikipedia but Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of published sources, not a publisher of original thought. Without citations and without meeting the bar of WP:GNG this article should be deleted. I expect that sources exist to establish this article, but those are not being presented and so much or everything here is without a citation to a reliable source.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may have some original research, but some of the article has sources. Also, it is an important topic to have information about. Frmorrison (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except, as mentioned, none of those sources are actual WP: Reliable Sources, thus making them invalid for any sort of argument. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP is so the option, in which I AGREE since I fully endorse opinions to weigh down decisions. --Highway 231 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is no Featured Article and is poorly sourced; I suspect that those who are shouting OR are correct insofar as the authors probably wrote the article without consulting a single source.  However, there are book sources that cover this topic with a perspective very similar to that of our article, such as The Revolutionary Yardscape: Ideas for Repurposing Local Materials to Create Containers, Pathways, Lighting, and More, ISBN 0881929972.  There are books written about the repurposing of a single object such as Craft Challenge: Dozens of Ways to Repurpose a Pillowcase, ISBN 1600594026.  And for a more academic approach see Design by Use: The Everyday Metamorphosis of Things, ISBN 3034609124 (yes, it is largely about repurposing—see the contents, or the picture of repurposing of a cigarette lighter as a bottle opener on page 11).  A poor article is not grounds for deletion if it has the potential to become a good article.  Deletion should be on the grounds of what it could become, not what it is now.  I also disagree with those desiring to redirect to reuse.  Just because that article covers the topic in summary does not automatically mean that there cannot be a main article at well, on the contrary, there probably should be. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * YEAH!  I would so KEEEEEEEEEEEP this article since some people have to do backbreaking research in order to even get a repurposing idea, and I feel Wikipedia can soften the blow of that.   I AGREE FULLY --Highway 231 (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, WP:NOTMANUAL. And an encyclopaedia is also not fit for a list of ideas or a howto. You have cut and pasted this article out of Reuse but this excessive list has no place as stand alone article. Reform it to an article about "repurposing" and add a few (max ten) significant examples to it. That goves the article a reasonable chance on survival. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 07:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed NOTMANUAL, but it is not necessary, nor should we be demanding, that the article is improved before passing AFD. It is only necessary that it be shown capable of being improved to encyclopaedic standards because it is sufficiently covered in reliable sources.  There is WP:NOTIMELIMIT.  A good academic source that is not a HOWTO that could be used as the central reference of this article is the Brandes et al. book I listed in my post above.  That is not to say that HOWTO books cannot be cited.  Just because a car manual is a HOWTO does not mean that we cannot have an article on car maintenance, or even one on car manual.  There is a great selection of these kinds of books to choose from as sources.  I listed some above, here are some more: Greeenmayer, Repurposing & Home Decor, Ganoe, Stuff out of Nothing: Repurposing old items around your home into new, useful, and fabulous items, Tebow, Decorating Ideas Made Easy : Repurposing And Home Décor To Declutter Your Home.  While I agree that endlessly listing every repurposing found in a HOWTO book is not encyclopaedic, many of these books have a preliminary section that describes repurposing in general: what it is, what it's for, and the scope and range of repurposing.  These parts of the books can certainly be used as sources for a general encyclopaedia article. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hit the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. You have news articles like this one  talking about the subject in detail.   D r e a m Focus  17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  17:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Delete or merge - [WP:notmanual]. There are good tips in this article, but it is not suitable for wikipedia. Might I suggest wikihow or instructables. 1292simon (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2014 (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.