Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green wedding


 * 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The result was WITHDRAWN. Nom's issues will be addressed through normal article editing and talk page discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Green wedding

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod, non-notable neologism. Eldamorie (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google searches show that the expression is being used, and that it is a topic of interest to lots of people. Borock (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only is the expression being used, but major newspapers are publishing in-depth articles about environmentally friendly weddings, wedding planners are specializing in this field, and classes on the topic are being offered. All these sources use the term "green wedding" so it is notable, and not at all a neologism Cullen328 (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is certainly notable as there are entire books written about it such as Green Wedding. The word green in this sense is about 40 years old and so is not new.  In any case, if an article title is unclear, we just rename it and so this is not grounds for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Shouldn't be hard to prove the notability of this one, given the amount of increasingly in-depth coverage it is getting.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess this warrants clarification - I'm not trying to assert that the concept is not notable - just that it doesn't warrant a standalone article, at least not now. The concept of a green wedding is not any different from a normal wedding, and it really doesn't warrant more than a paragraph in the main wedding article.Eldamorie (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's the case (though you did try to assert that the concept is not notable), then you should have just discussed merger and redirection on the talk page (or just done it) rather than starting an AFD. Want to withdraw this now and then deal with it through normal editing?  postdlf (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems reasonable.Eldamorie (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (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.