Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viridian design movement

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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 03:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viridian design movement[edit]

Non-notable, appears to fail WP:WEB, has only 186 unique Google hits when you remove the founders' name. Might be worth merging into Bruce Sterling. Aaron 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bruce Sterling. There's a perfectly good section on this topic on his page, and because the two are interconnected, and because I don't see much expansion in the near future, having it in one article would be ideal. --Kinu 07:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the movement is notable enough to warrant whole issue in two well known magazine [1][2]. --Salix alba (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salix alba Prodego ^talk 14:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever the final consensus is on this article is fine by me - I only discovered it while digging around trying to figure out what was going on with the bright green article - but I do want to say that I'm not sure Salix alba's cites are particularly mainstream. Bruce Sterling appears to have had a very long personal relationship with the Whole Earth Magazine (which is out of business), so it's not at all surprising they let him edit an issue. As for Time Digital, it was not Time magazine, but an offshoot magazine about the Net that didn't last very long (and doesn't appear to even have a WP stub about it). --Aaron 17:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is note-worthy for reasons explained above. Perhaps it should be expanded. --Loremaster 18:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above ikh (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:27, 10 February 2006 (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.