Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright green

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The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn Prodego ^talk 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bright green

Neologism. A Google search on the phrase in an environmental context shows it being used only by the same blogs and individuals who happen to have linked to it from their own Wikipedia pages. Aaron 04:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination per discussion below. --Aaron 07:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Niche, non-notable neologism. --Kinu 04:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete A check of the article's history shows that this started out as an article on the colour and has been a redirect to the article green. Whether reverted or redirected, past work should not be obliterated because someone hijacked it to talk about obscure politics. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Boldly reverting to the redirect for green. --Kinu 07:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I was aware of the article history. I didn't mention it becaue I didn't want to overly complicate what I expected to be a quick consensus to delete, after which I could restore the original article. But now that it's been mentioned: It was Dbenbenn, an admin, who originally blanked the article and turned it into a redirect to green, with the odd rationale (according to his edit summary) that there was "no content here" (which, as you can see from the diff, is factually incorrect). Nameneko then nominated the redirect for deletion, which I can only presme failed, as Stoph removed the RfD tag a little over two weeks later. It was then the anonymous user User:71.37.1.43 that hijacked the page and turned it into the environmental neologism that I nominated for deletion a few hours ago. We may have to WP:AGF on the anon user's actions, as WP:RFD rather confusingly says, "Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold." I personally don't believe that means you can change it into an article on an entirely different subject, but you have to admit it's pretty damn vague. Anyway, now that I've explained all that: As long as Kinu has already reverted, I'm going to revert back a little further to the last version of the true article stub about the color itself. (This was a legit article from the moment it was created, as there are a large number of articles about colors on WP; see List of colors, which to this day includes a link to the long-since-hijacked Bright green.) --Aaron 07:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with the version you've reverted back to... I'd like to say that when people think "bright green," they think of #66FF00, as its a pretty standard version of it. It's a lot more useful in this form than redirecting to "just plain old" green, and I'd keep it in this form. --Kinu 07:33, 5 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.