Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green economics

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green economics

Green economics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Green economics and ecological economics are essentially the same thing except that ecological economics is an actual field and green economics is not. Notice the similarities: Herman Daly as instrumental in both, both pushing the idea that sustainability is more than about externalities, ect. I suggest redirecting "green economics" to ecological economics to reduce confusion and redundancy. Essentially a couple people put up websites about "green economics" not realizing that the field ecological economics already exists. Plus, much of the Wikipedia page appears to be original research cobbled together from multiple sources -- the Wikipedia page has more information than the green economics websites. OptimistBen (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

After some further investigation, I found that most of the article was lifted straight from here. The article it was lifted from says this:

Various subgroups of these economists avoid the label green or Green in part to avoid association ::with political Green Parties and their broader goals. Often these use the term
ecological economics. (Sidenote: why does this not indentation not work with bold?)
To avoid confusion, we ought to go with the standard term of ecological economics. This Green economics article that we are debating is copyrighted anyway.
While I generally support deletion and combining it as suggested, could you clarify what you mean that the article is copyrighted? If this applies to ecological economics, that should also be fixed.--Gregalton (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Have just looked at that other site - content that's lifted from there should be deleted summarily, after which there is not much left.--Gregalton (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for multiple reasons. The article is largely a direct lift from this website. The article is also a kind of POV Fork from Ecological economics, and has POV issues. Best to eliminate duplication and keep (and improve) the Ecological economics article. Majoreditor (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete even though it was always my favorite type of economy. I agree it appears to be a POV fork, and parts are certainly written in a POV manner, possibly containing original research or personal opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per above.--Gregalton 10:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - if lifted from another website it is likely to be a copy-vio, which must be deleted. If the article is to go, substitute a redirect to ecological economics. Peterkingiron 22:45, 3 December 2007 (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.