Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of permaculture projects

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 keep. After two relists there's no clear consensus to delete the article, but rather to revamp it and overhaul it - which I'll leave to those who suggested such. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of permaculture projects

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

This is a large article which has been around a long time with many refs. However, not a single ref is from a reliable and independent source. Almost all are own web-sites and the whole article has become a list of projects each promoting their own merits. I can see no notability here. I would suggest that any residual content could be merged back to Permaculture Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of AfDs which are for articles split for length. Invariably they get recreated over time because of the tendency for lists to grow. I agree that the sourcing for most of this is poor, and we devote far too much time to the subject on WP due to the tendency for advocates of it to use WP as a promotional platform, but all we can do is aim for a firm hand when curating it. The parent article is far too long for a backmerge at this time at any rate. I'd just ruthlessly eliminate material that isn't properly sourced (on both the list and the parent) and see if that helped to encourage better growth in future. If a backmerge does happen then, we can redirect (protecting the redir if necessary to prevent it from being recreated). I don't think the subject matter is inherently non-notable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible that one reason for this split was to eject a problem section that lacked proper sourcing but was popular among editors. Joja lozzo 02:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's very useful to have real world examples of applications of theory and that the article serves a purpose. I think the solution is to pare it down to notable examples (on which Velella has already made a good start) and make it clear that it's not a directory. I'd suggest being very rigid in requiring good secondary sources for every example. (I've also proposed changing the title to "Permaculture projects" to avoid the tendency to make it a directory.) Joja lozzo 02:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Agree that the article needs major overhaul & editing for notability. Re-examine after that process is complete. I believe there may be something valuable here; right now it's hard to tell. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 16 September 2014 (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.