Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Green users

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedians/Green users
Similar pages are on review on VfD now (see arguments made in favor of deletion of Wikipedian citizens of the world and Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state), so in the interests of consistency, this one should be up for review too.


 * Keep Per reasons on Wikipedian citizens of the world and Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 10:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Cognition Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic? No. Notable? No. Deletable? Yes. Dave63 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Delete james gibbon  14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Freedom of assembly. Surely anything beginning with the "Wikipedia:" prefix doesn't need to meet encyclopedic criteria for notability in any case, because they're not articles, they're internal housekeeping. (Anyway, why shouldn't people be allowed to affinitize openly? They'll do it anyway.) Quartier Latin   1968  14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right. I was wrong. keep  --Dave63 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't people be allowed to murder? They'll do it anyway.
 * Ah, but this is a different scenario – people associating with one another on the basis of shared affinities does not, in itself, constitute any infringement on anybody else's rights (unlike murder). Given that, the process might as well be open, because secret arrangements are more likely to develop a nefarious character. Quartier Latin   1968  17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. These lists are generally harmless, but it wouldn't really matter if they were deleted. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless an explanatory paragraph is created to explain what is meant by Green instead of relegating that to the Talk page. Of course, that might make the page POV, which might prompt a different response. --Habap 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this not obvious to you from the comments on the page? And this is in the Wikipedia: namespace, it's not an encyclopedia article, so there no reason for it to comply with NPOV. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it asking that much to have someone put it on the page instead of having to read the Talk page discussion to infer what is meant? --Habap 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. Not the talk page, the page itself. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't articles normally start with an explanatory paragraph? I am unwilling to read each users comments to learn what Green means to them. Of course, you don't have to satisfy me, since most people seem in favor of keeping. If it gets an introductory paragraph explaining what Green means, I'll change my vote. And yes, I am this dim and stubborn. --Habap 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not an article. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I'm worried about how Wikipedia seems to be made up of different cliques, and I don't think this helps. --Scimitar 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Wikipedians interested in environmental topics, open up to those with all POVs. David | Talk 21:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Wikipedians/Yellow users Keep/rename as above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and wouldn't object to rename since "green" could mean enironmentally friendly or a member of the Green Party. Cburnett 00:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I fear the day that Wikipedia develops a "Neo-Fascist Wikipedian" group, because my internal ACLU Devil's advocate would insist on having all real groups or no groups. I agree with Scimitar that to delete this now only causes friction.  Xoloz 03:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Wikipedians interested in environmental topics 24.60.163.16 05:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - does not meet the deletion criteria as far as I can tell. Guettarda 05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all other attempts at political organizing in Wikipedia namespace. -- Visviva 12:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename; when I first saw the name I thought it meant "green" as in "new;" Wikipedians can catagorize themselves. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes me wonder if Trilobite was correct when he said Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. --Habap 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to a better title. Wikipedians interested in environmental topics sounds good to me. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:15:33 Z
 * keep: and add an intro... Ombudsman 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Forming communities of users is part of keeping a site like Wikipedia going.  Almafeta 07:29, 15 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.