Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Bloggers (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Green Party of Canada. Should be mentioned somewhere, but not suitable for a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bloggers

While "green blogging", referring to blogging on the environment, is a notable concept, I'm less sure that Green Bloggers is. No Gnews hits for green-bloggers.com, and a fairly limited number of regular Google hits. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Political blog, Canadian blogosphere, or Green Party of Canada (perhaps the section Green_Party_of_Canada#Internet_innovation). I'm not too sure which one, but in any case the topic seems suited more for a merge discussion than for an AfD, as it appears to pass WP:V and WP:DUE (via the Green Party) for inclusion somewhere on WP, regardless of whether it passes WP:N for independent treatment in a separate article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been on the site long enough and helps to represent a political bias with wikipedia. If it would not stand the scrutiny rendered to other sites such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate then it should not be welcome. I'm suprised it survived the first round of deletion. The justifications for keeping showed an obvious bias. Then, when this one is done with review there's still Blogging Tories and Cox & Forkum. Blogging Tories even includes as request for deletion in it's talk page. Cox and Forkum have no references from sites outside of their control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.219.241.11 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does Blogging Tories constitute evidence of some sort of left-wing bias on Wikipedia? Do you actually know what Tories are? (And, for that matter, Canadian Greens aren't exactly what you seem to think they are, either.) Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Green Party of Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 10 July 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.