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. MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contains one single unsourced statement, clearly a quote from somewhere, for which a citation has been requested since Feb, and for which no citation has been provided. Sure, this might be worthy of an article once there's actually some content, but I believe that in its current state this sub-stub should be deleted and recreated when there's actually some verifiable information. Pince Nez (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep There are a multitude of sources for improvement. Google books shows 733 items, or which at least 4 have exactly this phrase as their title. Eg. [1], Ecological Design By Sim Van der Ryn, Stuart Cowan, Published by Island Press, 2007 (2nd ed., 1st is 1996). I haven't even checked articles. If one wants articles expanded, ask a suitable wkiproject, don' nominate the article for deletion. Or, even, do a little work yourself. DGG (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the snidy "do a little work yourself" comment. I thought I did a little work here to improve Wikipedia. Obviously not. Bye, then. Pince Nez (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I meant of course, do a little work on this article yourself, instead of nominating for deletion. Such as I did in adding a first ref. to the article, not just stating it here. Not much to be sure, but better than arguing. DGG (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Typing the entire definition quotation into Google gave 18 hits to books/articles &c that discuss the subject, and could be used to expand this stub. I have added the reference for the quotation, which turns out to be from the book that DGG found. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect - To Sustainable design. As shown by the link - one of the concepts included is Ecological design, and this article is Actively edited. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:31, 28 November 2008 (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.