Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greener festivals

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 delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greener festivals

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content appears to be OR. Article is used to promote various events; the "references" are link spam. It might be a notable topic with a different title and real content; then again, maybe it's redundant vis-à-vis Sustainable event management. –Ringbang (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Green Festivals, a stub treating a similar (the same?) concept. Also also, A Greener Festival was speedy deleted in 2008, but its content now resides at User:Benchallis/A Greener Festival. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green Festivals (proper noun) were jointly created by an NPO and an NGO in the United States, and seem to me to meet the GNG. And that article seems pretty neutral to me. The article for deletion here, Greener festivals (common noun), is about a general class of festival as defined by the author, and is transparently abused by various contributors for event promotion. Ringbang (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No one has suggested any reason why this page should be kept. My "cf. other stuff" comment was not offered as an argument for or against deletion. I am offering an admittedly hollow deletion !vote now because I see no reason not to WP:SOFTDELETE the thing. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.