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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-brick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• This article looks spammy. Best check it out. There was a request to move it to Ecobrick (which now redirects to a disambig page), with this reason: "I am one of the founders of an alliance of folks around the world who are Ecobricking. We're non-profit, 100% volunteer and passionate about getting this solution out to the world. We want to swap the contents of the article 'Eco-Bricks' with that of 'Ecobrick'. When Ecobricking we weren't confident enough to give the process a full, un-hyphenated name. Ecobricking is now happening all around the world and the term is being used as a single word now in many languages. The hyphen is no longer necessary. We're thus adopting "ecobricks" as the go-to term for the technique. You will see in media references on the page that everyone is now calling it "Ecobricks". We want to update the wiki article to reflect this. We need help to make the move. Thanks! – 182.253.150.176 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Reliably sourced. "spammy" is to clean the article not to delete. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable topic. WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV are not valid reasons to delete. Please help improve the article. ~KvnG 14:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Most of the shite's been deleted so no reason to delete, I'll admit it still needs work doing tho. –Davey2010^Talk 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with media attention like [1][2]. The other two entries seems significantly less notable than this and not mentioned in the linked article, so IMO maybe we can give all forms of Ecobrick (with or without hyphen, capital or small B) redirects. There are of course other things to clean up in the article (like significantly rewrite section Making an Ecoblock to rid of WP:NOTHOWTO), but as far as AfD goes this is it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Because the "spam" in the article can be removed through normal editing, "spammy" is not a valid deletion rationale (see WP:BEFORE § c1). The subject meets WP:GNG (significant coverage), so it is notable. Esquivalience ^t 14:46, 15 March 2015 (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.