Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue–green alliance

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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. The weight of WP:PAG based argument and analysis of sources seems to come down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue–green alliance[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This listicle is completely unsourced and fails WP:LISTN, as it consists of a bunch of unconnected examples of alliances between political parties of varying ideologies or single parties with a certain ideology. Blue-green as an overarching descriptor for a list is useless, since colors aren't consistently applied based on ideology. The lead itself mentions this, stating that blue could be either conservative or liberal or even a non-political organization (i.e. labor unions), or that blue-green could even be a description of a single party's ideology. Most of the entries in the list aren't actually described as "blue-green" in the media, some are described using other colors, and several entries are "blue-green" but have nothing to do with Green politics per se. I suppose an article could be constructed about conservative-green alliances or coalitions, or about conservative-Green parties, but I don't think that "blue-green" is where either of those should stand in an international context, and I don't believe that the current content - or lack of content - of this listicle is where either should start. ansh.666 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Green conservatism which is much the same topic. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, a coalition of a green party and a conservative party is not green conservatism. These examples tend to be more for convenience of forming a majority coalition rather than an ideological relationship. This is largely OR to lump these diverse international variations together in a single list without any sources presented discussing the topic of "blue-green" as a set. Reywas92^Talk 00:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's poorly written and lacking sourcing, but the topic itself is notable and easily sourced. My university library contains 452 published sources that discuss the topic, including 60 peer reviewed journal articles. Ask me if you need examples, but there are so many it's unlikely WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes, we are definitely going to need examples. ansh.666 21:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to nicely format them. Look at User:4meter4/sandbox for a copy paste of all 60 peer review journal articles from my library search.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list indicates that the term is used, but to describe different coalitions. A green-labor coalition and green capitalism are not the same thing, and any article that tries to unite them is misplaced. There might be a place for an article on green-labor, and we already have an article on green conservatism, but combining them leaves nothing coherent, other than that green form coalitions, for which using the 'blue' color designator just confuses things due to the inconsistent color usage internationally (in other words, you could just as well describe the two as red-green alliances, depending on what country you were talking about). Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: The vast majority of the results in your sandbox (as well as my searches before nominating this article) refer to the BlueGreen Alliance, a U.S. organization which, in their own words, "unites America’s largest labor unions and its most influential environmental organizations". It has nothing to do with green conservatism or political coalitions. Please read the results you find next time. ansh.666 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. I don't see anything here that suggests this is a unified phenomenon, rather than just an obvious consequence of color-labeling of political parties. If you assign colors to parties, at some point, particularly in multi-party political environments where coalitions are common, the 'blue' party and the 'green' party are bound to end up together at some point, but the individual instances do not represent some broader pattern as appears to be portrayed here. This is highlighted by the fact that what political ideology is represented by 'blue' is polar opposite in different political traditions, so it doesn't even reflect the same kind of union. I don't doubt that one can document 'green' parties forming coalitions with 'blue' parties, but using the superficiality of color-labeling traditions to portray US labor-environmental coalitions as a flavour of the same phenomenon as 'green conservatism' obscures rather than illuminates, and I doubt there are any references that do this. Maybe a disambiguation page with links to the different coalitions that have been referred to as a 'blue-green alliance', but not an article that tries to unify them all. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate into Green conservatism, Green capitalism, and other such movements; delete entries for individual groups except those that actually have this as the title (such as the BlueGreen Alliance, should it pass WP:N). This is obviously a viable search term and shouldn't be left red-linked, but having a full blown article here is content forking of not particularly connected topics (seeing as "blue" has no established worldwide political meaning). Daß Wölf 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost totally unsourced WP:OR. I'm not finding any significant usage of the term in WP:INDEPENDENT sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2019 (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.