Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green tuning


 * 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   keep and move to Environmental impact-minimizing vehicle tuning. A discussion on the article's talk page can be held on finding a more suitable name. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Green tuning

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neologism with no sources that actually discuss the term Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has its value at Wikipedia to describe ecologic improvements to existing vehicles (ground, water & airvehicles). The article Electric vehicle conversion, ... also exist and this article falls perfectly into the same category (this name could also be considered a neologism, yet it too has its purpose on wikipedia). Removal of this article, along with the (now removed) Comparison of alternative ICE fuels, Alternative ICE fuel generator, and ICE fuel conversion should be avoided in the future, and quite frankly the removed pages should also be reintegrated to wikipedia.

KVDP (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have no issue with an article about ecologic improvements to exsiting vehicales, probably as a section of the existing articles about each class of vehicle. I have an issue with someone coining a new term :'Green Tuning' Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we have to be able to talk about these issues without making up phrases. The existence of the article suggests that "green tuning" is a term of art, and it isn't as far as I can tell, so it is misleading. Let's present information about this subject without misleading - see WP:VALINFO. wrt the ev conversion article, see: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move or merge: Guyonthesubway is right (Avoid neologisms) but this looks like encyclopedic info, so deletion isn't appropriate. The no-neologisms policy does need to be followed, so either it needs a purely descriptive name (this gets awkward though - Car tuning for environmental impact? Car tuning for minimum environmental impact?) or it should be merged to Car tuning. That article should definitely have a section on this, anyway. --Chriswaterguy talk 06:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One remark dough: car tuning would then only involve cars and no other (ground?) vehicles. perhaps it's best to rename this article to "Vehicle tuning"

217.136.150.185 (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems the phrase is only very rarely used in the wild, so this page has to go - WP:NEO. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Move to non-neo based name. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move as it's a notable topic with a neologism name. -- samj in out 01:35, 6 March 2010 (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.