Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon handprint


 * 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 Carbon footprint.  MBisanz  talk 04:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Carbon handprint

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Loaded term and violation of WP:NEO. Syncratic to the environmentalist movement, and not particularly notable therein.  — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 11:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As WP:NEO, WP:ESSAY, WP:SYNTH and WP:SPAM, since I assume it was written to promote the 'movement'. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Fair enough if you don't like the article - it's the first one I did. I wouldn't say it was written to promote the "movement" - I'm not associated with it or anything like that, I just came across it and thought it was a nice subject for my first article. This seems a bit elitist - I'm clearly not a spammer, but you're making it really hard to contribute with dismissive comments rather than anything constructive. - EggsIgnio
 * Don't take it personally. It's normal when you put an article in mainspace that it can be attacked or criticized. It's part of the process. Sorry sometimes Wikipedia is not as friendly as it should be. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term seems to be notable. The article needs a lot of work to avoid the policies cited above, however. PianoDan (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article lists enough sources about the concept to pass WP:GNG. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should be merged with Carbon_thumbprint ? EggsIgnio (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They look like they're different enough to have their own articles. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From where I stand, they both look non-notable enough to be deleted. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why a topic with Times of India, Huffington Post and Time Magazine references about the concept (as WP:NEO asks), plus more, is not notable in your opinion? Because it passes the WP:GNG with flying colours. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify here, the reasoning behind my delete !vote (and I suspect others) is that I get one book hit on Google for this, and zero on Scholar. As far as I'm concerned something like this needs to be an accepted scientific term, rather than a clever neologism coined by some random activist. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you (or I) are concerned with is hardly relevant, what is relevant is that it passes our policies and guidelines. If you find also a book hit, in addition to the news sources, then you're actually strenghtening the case for keeping it. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, the single book hit is actually in the index, referencing the website that this article is intending to promote. This is a neologism with dubious value and an ad for a website, nothing more. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what about the sources in the article? -- Cycl o pia talk  09:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What about them? The single Time article, plus one that is unrelated to the subject concept? You are being taken to the cleaners by a marketing campaign. Try and figure out what exactly "The Carbon Handprint Working Group" is and you'll understand my stance here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NEO, WP:coatrack. Also frankly peacock. Greglocock (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to explain your !vote? To me it passes WP:NEO: sources are about the concept, they don't just use it. About the coatrack, I just don't get it. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you please link to some of those sources? I did the basic level of googling before nominating this, and some more after you referenced them, but I still wasn't really able to find anything conclusive. Of course, that probably just means I didn't look hard enough, but would you mind mitigating my laziness and tracking them down? Thanks. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WTF? Did you at least see the article you nominated? They are there. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway:, , . -- Cycl o pia talk  09:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop being rude to me. I let your condescending apology on my behalf slide, and I ignored your whining about every single delete !vote, but I don't take well to being accused of not doing my research before nominating an article. Regardless, columnists love to use neologisms - notably, all three of those columns use the term handprint, as opposed to footprint, to either make a point or discuss the usage of the term. Furthermore, a term used in a handful of opinion pieces, but only seeing 3,000 GHits falls under a much simpler notability guideline: WP:DICTIONARY. Anyways, I'm going to go back to what I've been doing all along - watching this AfD from afar, and seeing what arguments other people make, and generally avoiding trying to discredit every single !vote I disagree with. I'd encourage you to do the same. — Francophonie &#38; Androphilie  ( Je vous invite à me parler  ) 23:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Carbon footprint. Neologism or not, the two are so closely related that having two separate articles would be unnecessarily spreading the knowledge out to multiple articles.  Also, since Wikipedia articles should generally be about things, not terms, having a separate article constitutes a form of content forkery.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  00:18, 28 December 2012 (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.