Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green copy

: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. Singu larity 08:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

=[[Green copy]]=

:{{la|Green copy}} ([{{fullurl:Green copy|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green copy}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Apparent neogolism by the article's own admission ("idea introduced in 2008"). Did a quick google search, and nothing related to this term came up, all I found were copy services that used recycled paper. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:Speedy delete: This article already has speedy deletion on it. It is just an idea the author has had himself. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up while taking out the recycling, no matter how laudable -- or practically unworkable -- the idea (or both). --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If you Google Josh Ruderman, the guy mentioned in the article, all you get is lost parrots and leaf blowers from amazon. <K F> 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete bleh. JuJube (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete as a nn neologism. MalwareSmarts (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

: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.