Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-environmentalism


 * 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   merge to Bright green environmentalism. The Bushranger One ping only 03:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Neo-environmentalism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete since it is a neologism that has not gained traction. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 05:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C ) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability is not yet established. There is only one secondary source, the Guardian article. The other two are primary sources advocating for "neo-environmentalism," although the first does not seem to use the expression. I expect that an article will be possible in the future, when the concept gets more notice in the press and in scholarship. Borock (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Bright green environmentalism. The topic is noteworthy and well-referenced, but the particular name used here is not so much.  Therefore merging to the other article with similar content makes the most sense.  The tendencies discussed in this article - in particular support of nuclear energy - should be incorporated into the "bright green" article, which doesn't mention this. -Helvetica (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Clearly they are the same thing and the other article is a bit more substantial. Plus it seems like a more catchy, memorable phrase more likely to catch on. Borock (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2013 (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.