Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistic detoxification

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 merge to Greenwash. Incidentally, pure transwiki and merge discussions don't require AfDs, so feel free to be bold in the future. --jonny-mt 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic detoxification

Linguistic detoxification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Several reasons to delete:

  • This is just a specific form of greenwashing. If you strip out the purely definitional language (which probably should be on Wiktionary?), hardly anything stands to dramatically differentiate it from greenwashing.
  • This word is so non-notable that the term doesn't even appear on the wiki page of the guy who supposedly thought it up, Barry Commoner.
  • The use of "some environmentalists" in the opening phrase is suspicious use of weasel words, possibly to overstate importance of word.
  • Only 619 Google hits[1], compared to 499,000 Google hits for greenwashing[2]

My recommendation: move to Wiktionary and merge leftover content to greenwashing.

Novasource (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, has been discussed in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Why is this an AfD rather than simply a {{mergeto}} tag, or action on the part of the originator to merge this into greenwashing? It seems that there is a useful distinction to be made between linguistic detoxification and greenwashing (greenwashing is a more general term, and linguistic detoxification is a specific kind of greenwashing), even if linguistic detoxification may not be notable enough on its own to warrant its own article, so merging and redirecting would be more appropriate than deleting. Remember to be bold and simply make the edits you'd like to, rather than just asking about them. — λ (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the very least, it whould remain a redirect. Merge and redirect discussions belong on the respective articles' talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A definition only. And green propaganda at that. 81.149.250.228 (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge to greenwashing, phrase is not terribly common but has some currency as in this link. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Greenwashing. If the term gains sufficient use, the article be recreated. Now it is little more than a DICDEF. As a phenomenon, it is best discussed in a section of Greenwashing. Dlohcierekim 14:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Greenwashing. It's still information relevant to the topic, just perhaps not strong enough to stand on its own. - Vianello (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to greenwash because it's an example of that broader concept. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable neologism, lack of evidence of wide use in any reliable source I could find. It turns up in a few environmentalist blogs, but does not seem to have made it into the mainstream. --MCB (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the majority of those results are scholarly research or testimony, that actually buttresses the idea that this is not a common term. That means it doesn't need its own page. Novasource (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why I suggested a merge :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per minimal amount of secondary sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to greenwashing. I doubt that even a university student would search for such a long term, but if they do, they'd be redirected to greenwashing. However, I'm a bit unsure of this because greenwashing seems like mostly for corporations, while Linguistic detoxification is for government. DA PIE EATER (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (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.