Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethical living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical living

Ethics is about kindness and doing the right thing; it is not about environment & energy. "Ethical living" has been made up by kooks. This leads to linguistic misinterpretation and discombobulation. --Patchouli 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep or merge to Sustainable living. Whether or not it has been "made up by kooks" isn't really relevant here; it's whether the concept exists and is popular enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. I could see merging it into the parent concept, though, but this seems to be a term used in the Guardian, for example. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep over 500,000 google hits for "ethical living" and all the ones i flipped through were related. Apparently people are using this term. Go figure. Recury 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And over 7,900,000 results for "you was."[1]--Patchouli 13:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - If I remove all the POV content to this article, I'm left with: the. Not encyclopaedic, nor really ever capable of being. WilyD 20:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article needs work for NPOV, but concept exists and is notable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term exists and is widely used. Needs work though. And if you can't see the link between environmental responsibility and doing the right thing, you're probably not smart enough to accuse other people of being kooks. -- GWO

*Delete It distorts the word ethics. It is loaded with destructive definitions and has no value whatsoever. It was coined by erratic people who wish to promote ignorance.--Patchouli 13:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • You nominated so you don't get to "vote" again. I'll agree that it is a loaded term, but if people are actually using it and discussing it then it doesn't matter, it counts as a notable concept. You can't just delete something because you disagree with the concept's wording. Recury 13:10, 13 July 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.