Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waste Watch

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waste Watch

Delete Very nice, but doesn't merit an entry in Wikipedia. PhilipO 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, and cleanup, assuming it is verifiable. Jkelly 23:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Why? It is simply an article about a municipal recycling program - and basically the instructions pasted here at that. So many towns and cities have one that I can't see why this one is particularly notable. Now, if it was the first of its kind....--PhilipO 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It's a provincial, not municipal, recycling program, it's mandatory, which is unusual, and the article contains numbers on its success rate, which means its more verifiable and encyclopedic than most articles put up for deletion. It needs cleanup, but I would like to see more articles in Wikipedia on verifiable, real-world concerns, not less. Jkelly 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• keep, notable aspect of recycling in Prince Edward Island. Kappa 00:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A ground-breaking and somewhat controversial waste management program. Lots of room for improvement and expansion. Pburka 00:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. -- Spinboy 02:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Other provinces have articles about current political issues in the province, Prince Edward Island should be no execption. --Cloveious 04:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa; this made the news as far west as Saskatoon, as I recall. If the article turns out to be unexpandable, merge it to PEI's article, but it seems like it could stand on its own. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Wow! I have never been so against the consensus with an AFD before! :-) Fair enough - it looks like it should stay. It needs work though.... Cheers. --PhilipO 18:25, 3 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.