Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright green (second 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 Keep by default - there are too many issues under discussion here, none of which seems to involve deleting the article, and the subject has shifted halfway through the process with the creation of the environmentalism article. Discussion of the relative merits of a disambiguation page, redirect or move can be discussed on the talk page. Yomangani^talk 17:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright green

Two problems here. 1) This article, which was created to be about the color bright green, has twice been hijacked by environmentalists who blanked the article without any discussion and turned it into an article about a supposed "subcategory" of environmentalism [1] [2]. 2) The term is a neologism that apparently is in little use even within the environmentalist movement. A Google search on "'bright green' +environmentalism" pulls up only 445 hits total [3], and even starting on the first page of results, most of the hits use the phrase "bright green" purely to mean, well, "bright green", as in "bright green oasis", "bright green in color", etc. Since there appears to be an orchestrated campaign by a certain few editors to hijack the page, I felt it would be best to go for a full AfD instead of simply reverting to the page's original content. Delete. Aaron 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Revert and protect Current article is an apparent neologism. Article should be reverted to the "green redirect" page and protected from further editing. --Jayron32 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The Google test is not an accurate measure of notability, especially when you use the wrong search terms. A search for "bright green" environment finds 540,000 results, many of which refer to this concept, including a mention in The Yale Herald. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for our policies, which don't apply in this case. This article should be moved to Bright green environmentalism and Bright green should be a disambig to that and the color green. At the very least, merge into Green movement or something similar. — Omegatron 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; none of the top 10 hits for "bright green" environment finds it fit to actually define the term. Vectro 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Bright green environmentalism, then restore old colour page and add a dablink Percy Snoodle 13:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to this version or Redirect to Green and suggest aggressively watching the article to keep it from being hijacked again. "Bright Green" as an environmental term fails WP:NEO and the article is not verified and appears to be original research. Googling "bright green" environment as suggested in comments above does not produce any cohesive information or definition of the term which would justify the version of the article currently at this namespace. I don't have any strong objection to creation of a Bright green environmentalism page if someone can produce WP:V sources showing that this is a widely used term for the type of environmentalism described in the article, but as it stands this namespace should be returned to covering the color.--Isotope23 14:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Bright green environmentalism, then restore old colour page and add a dablink. MGTom 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to this version. If necessary, add Bright green environmentalism or Bright green (environmentalism). –Dvandersluis 19:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Revert and close discussion. This is an edit war, not a deletion question. Gazpacho 22:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Close AfD, content issue unsuited for AfD (now it's about the colour again). If an article on this brand of environmentalism is created, we can assess it on its own merits. Sandstein 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article on the color. If the environmentalism stuff comes back it should be on a different page, as the color article is worth having. We can then have an AFD discussion about the environmentalism content, but my current thinking is that it fails WP:NEO due to lack of independent reliable sources about the term. GRBerry 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've created Bright green environmentalism. You can now put that up for deletion and close this, as it was never actually about deleting bright green, but about reverting to the color article. — Omegatron 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article "Bright green" (color), keep the article "Bright green environmentalism" but change the title back to "Bright green." The color does not merit its own page-- I notice there isn't one for "Dark Green" and "Green" will do. The environmentalism topic is more deserving of the "Bright green" title, and the color article is kind of pointless. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:04, 17 October 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.