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. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism, editors have been unable to find a definition of the subject Greglocock (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify - since the subject is essentially undefined, as shown by the lede it becomes a matter of opinion, and so any editor can claim that any vehicle is green and so rates a mention on the page. I have looked for, and requested that others look for, a decent definition of "Green vehicle" , several times over the past year, with no actual success (the EPA use the term but don't define it AT ALL). Greglocock (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I declined a prod based on this rationale--the numbe of sources and external links show the possibilities--it's just a question of working on it to improve the clarity. DGG (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out the obvious, the simplest way to kill this AfD is to find a definition of the subject that satisfies WP:RS, rather than pontificating about how other people should work on the article. Greglocock (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My friend once owned a green 1970 Gremlin. It was the worst car ever, and pretty ugly. Edison (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a guide to green vehicles and significant coverage of the concept from which to write an article. Because there are differing opinions on what makes a green vehicle doesn't mean there can't be an article that addresses these points. StarM 01:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is used all over the place, by the EPA and other official organizations. Everybody has an idea what it means, even if there's no hard and fast definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then perhaps I could point you at Wikipedia:Neologism, where the problem of articles about poorly defined subjects is discussed in a rational fashion. So far all I see is WP:ILIKEIT Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT? I don't think so, what I see is an article that can and should be improved and therefore should not be deleted. When a government entity comes into the fold, I think it ceases to be a neologism because it's discussed in reliable sources that present the different sides of the issue. What I see from you is IDONTLIKEIT in that you're ignoring the sources, all of which appear to be reliable sources, because they don't follow your POV. That said, I don't care one bit whether the article is saved or not because I don't care about the topic and won't ever work on the article, but I think you're misrepresenting/misunderstanding the sources. StarM 12:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the neologism article. I have excerpted the relevant part below. If you think I have an opinion about Green Vehicles you are right, google my name and solar cars. What I don't like are soapboxing articles. Greglocock (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but soapboxing can be fixed with editing using reliable sources that present the issue. No objection to merge if the LEV is a better target. I don't care about "green" - tacky to say on earth day, I know, but I think there is RS discussion and because it's a valid topic, people will look here for information. We owe readers a good article if one can be created, and I think it can StarM 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new and it's not restricted to "certain communities", so how is it a neologism? Canada (or at least Saskatchewan) provides rebates for "neologism" owners, companies like Ford use it as a marketing tool, Yahoo has a "green center", World Car of the Year has a category for green cars, etc. There are tons of non-Wikipedia-polluting references, so what's the problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Greglocock (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per the nomination. Some vehicles may be less harmful to the environment than others, but then most vehicles are less harmful than some vehicles - so where does "green" cut in. There is no objective definition of a green vehicle. -- de Facto (talk). 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per continued uage in numerous sources. If a "definition" were all that was needed, Wictionary would be the place. The article attempts to increase the reader's understanding of a notable subject [1], [2], [3], [4]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Environmentally friendly vehicles. This is an important subject, but "Green" here is sloppy journalese. My car is peppermint green, but it is a standard small car, with no unusual environmental features. I have not investigated what parallel articels exist. Accordingly the answer may be to merge somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a better place for it, in fact the existing Low energy vehicle article has the advantage that it is a properly defined concept. EFV suffers from a slippery slope argument, in fact at least one RS has said there is no such thing, since all vehicles damage the environment. Yeah OK, how about a merge with LEV? Greglocock (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or, at the very least, rename per Editor:Peterkingiron. The term "green" has become commonplace to describe enviromentally positive products. Also, political parties are so-named to describe their platform. Soon, as the media/governmental/social use of the term increases the term Green vehicle will be just as self-explanitory as Xerox. BTW...I have a 12 year old Harvest Green GMC pick-up. At 15-18 MPG, it was never "green".--Buster7 (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then redirect to Environmental technology this is a neologism at worst, and at best a content fork. Ill-defined (how green is "green" enough for inclusion? Etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not a neologism - there's no new word in this phrase. And the definition seems no more difficult to manage than sports car or limousine. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "A 'green vehicle' is a car that that creates less damage to the environment when compared to traditional cars that run solely on petrol." [5] turn in your homework kids. pohick (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. I have a fairly low opinion of the Green Vehicle article, and agree that a definition for the phrase from an 11 year old's schoolbook would be in keeping with the article as it stands. I agree that if the article stays then that level of reference is an appropriate level of mockery. Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, you can't say it's a neologism, or undefined in a verifiable source anymore: only that it's child's play. (lookit wiki is not a technical library, like DFE2008 Automobile Engines) save the hairsplitting for the design manual pohick (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you were serious? Oh dear. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

serious is funny too: the fact that the WP:V is funny dosen't make your argument not funny. (wiki is popular culture, with all the hype, misunderstanding, and even pseudoscience: academic engineering papers with precise definition of terms, are another forum) pohick (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe most people saw "green vehicle" they knew what it meant right away. This is a legitimate topic for an article. You can perhaps rename it "vehicle of a more environmentally friendly nature" or something. Can't just say "environmentally friendly" because they aren't, they just damage the environment far less. Would horse drawn carriages be included as "green vehicles"? They are a vehicle, and clearly green. Dream Focus 04:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could those in favor of keeping this article please address the issue of why this article in particular should be allowed to contravene the neologism guideline quoted above? Greglocock (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment because it isn't one. Simply being a new word, doesn't mean it's a neologism. It's a work that has come into significant use in news and scholarly information. Just because a word is introduced at some point after the English language was invented doesn't mean it's a neologism. StarM 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The problem I have with this subject is that the connotation of this word is always changing. By the standards of 20 years ago, every vehicle on the road today is "green." In 5 years, the definition of "green" will be much different than the definition today. I can't think of another subject that changes like this to look for any sort of precedent. I won't say delete or keep either way but I think that's important to keep in mind. Like DreamFocus said, it may need renamed to better represent that the definition of "green vehicle" is different now than it will be in as few as fice years. OlYeller^Talktome 01:28, 28 April 2009 (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.