Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecoliterature


 * 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. this does not preclude merging or moving as required by editorial consensus.  Sandstein  06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoliterature

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a lot of hits on Google web search, google news and google books.--Patton123 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Term might be notable and I was leaning towards keep or merge, but I don't see anything worth building on in the article. If someone wants to work up something that has sources and isn't OR then I'm all for it. Let me know if you need any help. I think the topic might best be covered with a section in a broader article subject like ecology or environmentalism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article may be better as a stub, as it seems a poster-child of stubness. The subject matter is not well-covered elsewhere in the aggregate and the article does need to be enlarged and fleshed out with examples (Silent Spring, anyone?), however it seems a good start for a subject currently being culturally fast-tracked by publishers, booksellers, and libraries, at least in the U.S.. I vote to change its status to stub rather than to delete it. Sctechlaw (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Environmental literature which seems to be a very common term Shii (tock) 19:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge, perhaps, with Nature writing. Neither article is very complete. Thoreau, Muir, Dickenson, O'Neill, Eliot, et al would all fit. Ecocriticism is more fairly fleshed out and may provide a good merge candidate too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sctechlaw (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Currently a weak article, needs more substance presumable available in the references.  Merging might be a good idea.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2009 (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.