Talk:The Green State

Wikipedia is no soapbox
This is an article on a political theory that seems to promote ideas of one single individual. Wikipedia is not soapbox for promoting ideas. Please add more sources and give more perspectives. How does this political theory relate to pre-existing political theories? Who oppose it? Who support it? Has it been met with any criticism? Who are the other people mentioned above that have power over the definition of this term? Please give references to publications in relevant fields. --hydrox (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the expansion and improvement of this stub into a good article should and will answer all your questions, this article has never been an example of Wikipedia being used as a “soapbox” in the sense of a flamboyant advocacy of a pet point of view. --Loremaster (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So instead of addressing the material points of my concern, you just entirely refute my point by assuring any concerns whatsoever will be resolved at some undefined point of time? --hydrox (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been wanting to expand and improve this article for a long time but I've been to busy to do so and probably will be for a few weeks. However, if you're truly interested in this subject, stop waiting for someone else to do what you know needs to be done. --Loremaster (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All Google results I can find of "green state" are dominated by a single individual who seems to have coined this term, ie. this headword is not significantly covered by multiple secondary sources. Thus, I would probably nominate this article for deletion (or propose renaming it as The Green State – Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, being about the book that seems to coin this term). --hydrox (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be opposed to simple deletion but I would support renaming it The Green State. --Loremaster (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've renamed the article The Green State and rewrote its content to make it about the book. --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We've already had this discussion. I'm redirecting this article to Robyn Eckersley. If someone wants to improve the article to show that the book is notable on its own, they are welcome to do so. As it stands, the article simply does not demonstrate that the book is notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this redirect so I've reverted your edit, restored the article and I'm currently improving it to show notability. In the meantime, I've added the notability template. --Loremaster (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, in light of how busy my schedule will become in the next few days and weeks, I think it's best to redirect this article to a new section in the Robyn Eckersley article until I find more time. Dispute resolved for now... --Loremaster (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just writing to affirm that I am content with the situation and happy to see it resolved so quick. The section in Robyn Eckersley covers the core ideas that this headword previously covered to a satisfying depth. --hydrox (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect. --Loremaster (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)