Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable habitat

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 of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable habitat

• This article was orginally prodded without comment, therefore I am moving it here. The article looks pretty good actually. I'm voting Keep. James084 02:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• delete. The article has only one incoming link, from permaculture, the permaculture page originally linked to the two terms Sustainable and habitat individually. Both of those articles are much better and more extensive than this one which dose little more than say it is a habitat which is sustainable. The article was created by the owner of the only web page it links to The new Shire Institute (the other link is a similar wiki-style entry by the author on another site). There are no (0) google links to this web site, which just consists of a single page. The page could be expanded a lot. But currently it is a case of the whole being much less than the sum of its parts and a clever case of non notable link spam. (proder) --Salix alba (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard the term. This biological concept is very similar to the (very good) sustainable development article, but just needs a cleanup and some more information. The fact that the one site that is linked by the article is non-notable is not grounds to delete. Googling the term produces 23,700 results, one of which is the Canadian government. Granted, that link refers to sustainable development, but with a rewrite this article could be a feature someday. Isopropyl 02:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. It's a legitimate term and a legitimate concept, and the natural aspect distinguishes it from sustainable development. The article should be expanded, not deleted. bcasterline^talk 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. 21,500 Google hits for the term [1] Does well in Google books [2] and Google scholar so plenty of verifiable resources [3]. Capitalistroadster 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Expand, clean, cite reserach etc... pschemp | talk 06:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, --Terence Ong 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalist and Bcaster. JoshuaZ 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a legitimate, expandable, and encyclopedic concept. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep consensus to keep seems to have bee arrived at, and I withdraw my objection. No point prolonging the debate, better now to improve the article. --Salix alba (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2006 (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.