Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green biotechnology

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. Salvio ^giuliano 20:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green biotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Another contested redirect - does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:NEOLOGISM and with the article being unsourced since 2003. For those of us university folk that actually work in this field, this is definitely a case where if you do see "green" thrown in front a a term, it's not really meaningful. When you go searching for sources, most are just corporate style adverts, though one of the top results is from a Stockholm University course description, Green biotechnology is defined as the application of plants and other photosynthetic organisms with the aim to improve agricultural crops or for industrial purposes in order to generate industrially useful products. . . In other words, just regular biotechnology where the qualifier is superfluous. It all just depends on the specific case and use that would instead be something to mention in a regular biotech article that X application has benefits for erosion, pesticide reduction, etc. Green biotech wouldn't be a term used in such articles though to describe that though, so it keeps going back to the neologism issue. KoA (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per KoA. The 'green' does not seem to add anything. Not notable enough to have more than it already does in the biotechnology article. PopoDameron ⁠talk 19:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The current article is short and unhelpful and could be deleted with no loss. But I disagree somewhat with the rationales of the previous two editors. Whether we dislike the term or not isn't relevant; it's very widely used, and it's easy to find enormous quantities of websites and articles discussing what the term means, what it implies for the modern technological world. I'd have no objection to anyone writing a good article about it, and it could easily out-grow the existing biotechnology article. Elemimele (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my comment, most of what you find is just advert or low-quality websites we can't really use in terms of WP:GNG. In short, there's a lot of junk to sort through in terms of those "enormous quantities" you mention, and definitions are nebulous at best like I mentioned above. KoA (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2023 (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.