Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-light

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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green-light

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

Summary: The article explain that "green light" is jargon or slang for approval and mention instances where this is the case. This purpose doesn't warrant an article and it should therefore be deleted. The article has no prospect of being improved rather than deleted. The article has no content that isn't mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia and can therefore be deleted without merging. The original purpose of the article and its description in the disambiguation page is for its meaning in motion picture production, but there is no need for a stand-alone article for this more narrow purpose either.—Suggested action: If a consensus for deletion is reached the article should be redirected to the disambiguation page Green light.—Relevant guidelines: Style manual: "minimize jargon", "do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader, when more common alternatives will do". The term "green light" can be replaced with more common alternatives and should be avoided in articles. I've replaced the term with more common alternatives in the articles that were previously linking to the page (primarily articles about motion picture production, they can be found in my change log). Wikipedia is not a dictionary: A stand-alone article for this jargon term has the nature of a dictionary entry. In case of motion picture and baseball the meaning of the term is explained in filmmaking and baseball glossary. Merger guidelines: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." This applies to this article. (It also applies to the article start date (that's linked from this article) that can with advantage be taken care of in conjunction with this article since they fall under the same topic.) Notability: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The article has two references, one is the definition of "green light" in encyclopedia.com, the second is a (broken) link to a page about a TV series about TV production called Project Greenlight. These sources do not address the subject directly in detail. No original research: "You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The sources don't meet this requirement.--John S. Peterson (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.JoelWhy (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per JoelWhy. JDDJS (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Green light" is a common term in the industry, especially when you're talking about Development and Pre-production. In fact it is the most common term for this specific meaning. Producers and screenwriters talk about getting a "green light". They don't use "looking for approval" or other generic phrases. The language is full of terms that could be replaced by another word. That doesn't mean those terms should be deleted from encyclopedias. There were dozens of articles that used the word and link Green-light until John S. Peterson suddenly removed them today. That indicates multiple other editors found the term to be appropriate. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article" in accordance with the discussion guidelines.--John S. Peterson (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't you know how to click on an article's History? There's even a link for it near the top of this page - one click and you can see everyone who contributed going back to 2004! I never touched it until yesterday, when I merged in the text from Start date since you were hitting that page as well. I didn't even know that page existed before, but its info fits well on the green-light page. You drew my attention when you suddenly took a common term out of dozens of film pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the term is well known enough outside the film business. That Project Greenlight used the term in its title is evidence that it it well know. It seems like John S Peterson has a personal mission to remove the term from as many article as possible today. Suggest that he halts the crusade until the notability of the term is decided. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with the concerns by Gothicfilm and Darrenhusted, the green light is used as a common term in the film industry. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a common term full stop. Therefore WP:DICDEF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gothicfilm's !vote, article can be improved with sources easy to find. The jargon point is not a deletion argument; it may be an argument for removal from other articles, but there you have silent consensus and active reversion to suggest it's not jargon there either; and doing lots of removals immediately before AFD is not a gradualist, consensus-building process. Article is growing beyond dicdef appropriately, though there's no steroid like AFD for catalyzing the process. JJB 17:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Delete. Despite all of the efforts to improve this, and the comments above, this remains a dictionary definition of a common English phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Possibly move to Green-lighting. bd2412 T 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICDEF. And while we're at it, Start date is also WP:DICDEF and should be deleted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The green light article is about a concept. A reading of WP:DICDEF shows the determination is not based on the length of the article, but whether it covers a concept or simply a definition. This is the only article that focuses on the concept of getting a green light. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the term "green light" is just a phrase that's used when giving the go-ahead to anything, film-related or not. Therefore, nothing more than a dictionary definition. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just (mainly film/TV) jargon. But its use shouldn't be purged from other articles, they could redirect to the Wiktionary article. Some text from this article could expand the latter. Barsoomian (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2012 (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.