Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green search engines


 * 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. BJ Talk 23:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Green search engines

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Curious and unsupported neologism - a Google search of "green search engine" turns up a handful of articles with a different meaning. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although the two sites listed may describe themselves by that term, neither one is notable, and neither is the concept. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn concept. JJL (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, unless reliable sources can be found using that term in this way. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepWell it´s true that one can discuss what the term "green search engine" really means and maybe it is so that one should discuss the different types of green search engines in the article itself. I believe however that most people would find the two engines already mentionned in the article to be the greenest as they do aim to plant trees and where the first ones out. After them many others have appeared so it is not unreasonable to think that this is a new internet trend (there where some "charity" search engines before, but not totally green ones). I think that the term "green search engine" has been coined and was surprised not to find it already in wikipedia. So I believe that the article is relevant myself. As more and more "green search engines" are appearing I think it would be negligence not to include an article about it in the wiki. Of course one could work more on the article and surely people will. Ecocho has already an article in the wiki so why not the term "green search engines" itself? I mean Google and Yahoo might copy the concept anytime in the future but first out in April this year (2008) where Ecocho and Treehoo and I think that is reason enough to include them in the article. For references to this new term as it is mainly used on the net see here: readwriteweb.com/archives/15_of_the_best_green_search_engines.php#comments --- treehugger.com/files/2008/07/best-green-search-engines.php --- floridagardener.com/misc/greensearch.htm --- guidemegreen.com/forum/reply.php?topic_id=120 --- Chers, Jose
 * Keep I say also keep. But wanted to add that the Treehoo web was started as early as march (the 13th more exactly) as the webpage heropeople.com and already then used the devise "You surf - we plant trees" which Echoco later turned to "You search - we plant trees", so I think that the credits should go to Treehoo alone. Although I believe that more "green search engines" could be included to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Ptrs (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete/merge It's not Wikipedia's business to have articles on a business model. If you want to include with and article on Search Engines and/or an article on Green Businesses  BMW  (drive)  17:04, 16 July 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.