Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Based on subsequent evidence.  MBisanz  talk 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous AfD was closed as transwiki. Article was then speedy deleted as WP:A5, and author complained to deleting admin, who restored it. The article, after cleaning up, contains a definition and a couple of uses in the press. This is a dictionary definition of a neologism, and is not encyclopedic in nature. The references provided are not about the use of the word, they use the word. Author has had plenty of time to improve the article, and has not been able to do so. As the article has already been transwikied, I request this now be deleted. Atmoz (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to wiktionary. This shouldn't be a redlink because it's a likely search term, so deletion is not appropriate.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a likely search term, but I have no objections to a soft redirect. -Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * kill properly this time, with stake through heart, and bury at a crossroads. Etc. Per nom, but also A Greenfinger, or 'Green finger' is a maverick individual who engages in environmental projects, notably geoengineering, without proper control or supervision. is simple nonsense: there are no such individuals, for the obvious reason that it's impossible William M. Connolley (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Newscientist disagrees with you.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nude scientist isn't a WP:RS for science, as a quick perusal of the article you use as a ref makes clear William M. Connolley (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep I've added two definitions about the term, and numerous notable citations. I've also added encyclopaedic content about particular individuals, which can't be transwiki'd.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but the definitions belong on Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia and the good faith attempt at encyclopaedic content belongs in Gregory Benford.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment -- this shouldn't be an AfD at all, since the nominator has agreed that a soft redirect is appropriate and redirection doesn't need the AfD process. We don't need to re-fight the previous AfD.  We just need to finish implementing the outcome, which I suggest is best met by replacing the existing content with a soft redirect.  The only reason I haven't already done that as a non-admin closure is because User:William M. Connolley's position remains that the article should be deleted.
 * I invite User:William M. Connolley to reconsider, as if he does this can be closed.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually a (real) redirect to Geoengineering seems more appropriate. I had a look for sources.  There isn't actually discussion of greenfingers to be had.  It's just an attention-grabbing name used in discussion of the legal regulation of geoengineering.  It's a small nonce word name used off-handedly in discussions of a large, proper, subject.  And we already have it discussed in that article as exactly that, in the very way that the sources that I came across do.  The article already cites one of the sources that I discovered, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ARTICLE NOW EXPANDED, PLEASE RE-CONSIDER PS in the event of deletion, please copy to my userspaceAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've copied and pasted some of Geoengineering into the article. You've certainly done nothing to change my mind.  Indeed, you've merely made it clearer that this is a duplicate article that should be a redirect to that very section. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also added other material.Andrewjlockley (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep current version; the term is fairly clearly in current usage. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 6 March 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.