Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regenerate Our Culture

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 delete. - brenneman ^{L} 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regenerate_Our_Culture[edit]

Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. This article is pretty clearly an advertisement for an obscure weblog (Alexa.com won't even generate pageview/reader graphs, because it's ranked so low), and a collection of external links to the weblogs of their contributors. Under the Deletion Policy, this article should be removed from Wikipedia. Nortelrye 23:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the author of the original article just so happens to be one of the featured authors of Regenerate Our Culture. While I am trying to Assume Good Faith, it's pretty clear that this user is creating articles about "subjects in which they are personally involved", in violation of WP:NOT. Nortelrye 02:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is advertising, as it contains nothing you wouldn't find by going directly to the blog itself. Essentially, an extended external link. Brillig20 23:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Self promotion by bloggers. Ande B 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm thinking this might well be speediable under CSD7. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably is a candidate for speedy deletion, but I figured I would try my best to Assume Good Faith on the part of the creating editor, and give them the courtesy of a full AfD process. It looks like it's going to have the same result anyway, just a bit later rather than sooner. Nortelrye 20:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Okay guys, this is the original writer of this article speaking. I have been extremely busy as of late and have not had a chance to edit this article further. I plan to expand this article quite a bit once I get a chance (which is why it is a stub. . . .) Once I get a chance to work on this further it will be an article that is a lot longer than it currently is - maybe about twice as long as, say, Power Line.

I must respectfully disagree with the statement that Regenerate Our Culture is an "obscure weblog". Google PageRank rates it at a "5" - which is pretty high for an "obscure weblog". All articles published on this site are rigorously edited and re-edited (I know from personal experience). There are hundreds and hundreds of sites which link to ROC using its macromedia link button - which might explain why Alexa cannot read it.

This is a quote from the WP:NOT page: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." That is one reason that I made a stub - so that the rest of the Wikipedia could have an opportunity to contribute and I would not be doing it all.

I did not create this page in order to advertise for ROC; the hundreds of websites that link to them are doing an excellent job of that already. I created it so that the Wikipedia community could compile 'neutral' information on a relevant topic that people might want to see - which is the whole point of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is famous for delivering a NPOV on just about every topic imaginable - which is what makes it so popular. ROC is not an obscure weblog, nor is this stub the extent of the article that will eventually exist if you guys help out. Help improve Wikipedia by getting more information about ROC and similar programs and making new pages!

I will post more in defense of this article ASAP ... I am pretty busy but I will try my hardest. :-) In Him,

standonbible 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a POV issue, else I'd have just stuck a template up at the top of the Talk page and tried to clean up the article a bit. The reason I submitted this article for AfD is that firstly, it appears to be an advertisement; and secondly, it does not appear to be a notable subject for a Wikipedia article.

No offense intended, but I don't believe that that the article you created can pass Notability for web content. According to that guideline, Regenerate Our Culture should either have been: "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", the recepient of "a well known and independent award", or "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". As far as I can tell, Regenerate Our Culture meets none of these standards, and is therefore not considered to be notable.

Honestly, the article reads like an advertisement for a group of bloggers, with a "this article is a stub" thrown in at the bottom. A person not Assuming Good Faith might think that it's nothing more than blog-spam hiding behind stub status. IMO, whether or not you flesh out the article doesn't make Regenerate Our Culture any more of a notable subject; which is why I submitted this article for AfD to begin with. If anything, I think you should just let the AfD go through, and then once you've got a fully fleshed-out article ready just stick the whole thing right back up. That way you can take all the time you need to write up a really good article, and you won't have to deal with AfDs while you're trying to do so. I think the article would have a much better chance of standing up to an AfD for notability if it were filled with lots of relevant, verifiable info presented in an NPOV manner.

Also, you might want to consider copying the relevant parts of your defense to the article's Talk page, so that it'll be easier to find and use in the future. Cheers! Nortelrye 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying about Notability. However, the notability page is not official WP policy. I would contend that a site receiving in the neighborhood of 2500 unique hits per day is notable enough.

I would let the AfD go through except for these two points-in-question:

The Regenerate Our Culture blog network and online magazine is plenty notable for Wikipedia,
The WP:NOT page recommends that editors directly involved with a subject not be the primary writers of an article on that subject, so I want other people to contribute so it's not just my private opinion.

To clarify: this page was never intended to be and will not be an advertisment page, and even though ROC does not fit the "notability" criteria on a non-official policy page, its PageRank and astronomical hit count constitute plenty of "notability".

I understand your concerns, Nortelrye. But how about taking off the AfD and instead helping to improve the article yourself (like I said, I don't want to contribute too much) and once it is fully fleshed out then decide whether it should be deleted.

Thanks so much, guys!

In Him,

standonbible 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Notability is nothing more than a guideline, it's not official policy. However, WP:NOT *is* official policy. It really does seem that the ROC article is little more than an advertisement, and so under WP:NOT and the Deletion policy it ought to be removed - it seems pretty straightforward to me, and judging by the votes on this page, I'm not the only one who feels that way. If you'd like to get other people to flesh it out, perhaps you could copy the article to your Talk page and get people to work on it there? Once it's no longer obvious blog-spam, it would probably stand a better chance of surviving an AfD when you re-post it. Nortelrye 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. — Dunc|☺ 15:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable enoughCheckerpaw 02:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert. PJM 11:32, 18 April 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.