Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecomaterials (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy delete as a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ecomaterials

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ecomaterials
• Articles for deletion/Ecomaterials (2nd nomination)

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

This article was originally deleted via AfD back in March of 2006. When the article was re-created it was tagged with a speedy-repost, but I think it should be re-assessed for the following reasons:

1. A lot has changed in terms of environmental awareness in the past two years. I don't know how many google hits the term "Ecomaterials" got in 2006, but in 2008 it gets about 8,000 (also Ecomaterial and "Eco material").
2. The original article was more of an advert for a company that made Ecomaterials (as a trademarked name, I guess), and although the text is essentially the same in the new article, it does not mention the company.

For the record, my position here is Neutral. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral-Delete There are copy-paste copyright issues, as most, if not all, of the article is copied from [1]. Also, the lead in says:

  Ecomaterials is a word that defines construction materials that are ecologically and economically viable.

  , but a Google search turns up a variety of definitions for the term, not limited to construction. Overall, I think that ecomaterial is more of a jargon term than a specific topic for an encyclopedia. Maybe it can be documented on Wiktionary. Also, to keep the Google hits thing in perspective, other environment-related concepts, such as ecotourism, get over two million Google hits [2] Phillip (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Although this should be deleted because of copyright violation. Perhaps it could be rewritten as a good article using sources found on Google. Not sure who wants to do it though. Just a thought. Chris! _ct 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete copyvio. B.Wind (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2008 (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.