User:Cullen328/Sandbox/Green Home


 * Keep Those who recommend deleting this article are correct that, as currently written, it reads largely like a how-to manual, with second person recommendations and an advocacy tone. However, read the official policy WP:NOT and especially the subsection WP:NOTHOWTO that says "Wikipedia articles should not read like . . . instruction manuals".  Please note that deletion is not listed as the main recommended solution in such cases.  Instead, the policy's first recommendation is, "When you wonder whether the rules given above are being violated, consider: Changing the content of an article (normal editing)".  Only later, when other options won't work, is deletion listed as an option.


 * See also our deletion policy, WP:DEL, which states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Later, it states, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page."


 * So, before considering deletion, let's determine whether the topic is notable. Amazon.com shows over 50 books for sale on the topic "green home", and this is after eliminating those that are not 100% on point.  A quick Google search shows hundreds, if not thousands, of magazine and newspaper articles on the topic.  There is also a reality TV series produced by Discovery called "World's Greenest Homes" devoted to the topic.  There is no doubt in my mind that the topic is notable.


 * Now, let's consider whether the article has any useful content that can be salvaged. The article now has ten references listed.  I don't claim that these are the very best references, but they represent a start and it is clear that ample references are readily available.  How about content?  The article has plenty of information on site selection, building orientation, construction materials, energy efficiency, water conservation, landscaping issues, and examples of green home developments.  Certainly, the material needs significant editing and rewriting.  I volunteer to help with that effort.


 * Let's also consider how we are treating a new editor who has made a significant effort to write an article on a notable topic of wide interest. See our policy WP:NEWCOMER.  Here we have an editor is isn't vandalizing, or writing about an unknown garage band, or video made on a $500 budget, or an obscure comic book character.  Instead, this brand new editor writes a 23 paragraph article on a topic, that in all honesty, I'm amazed doesn't already have a Wikipedia article.  Is this new editor welcomed?  Is this editor thanked?  Is an offer made to help this new editor understand our policies better?  No, instead, just eight minutes after the article is uploaded, it is nominated for deletion.  What a shock that must have been to a potentially very productive new editor!  And in short order, several other Wikipedians join in the call for deletion, "delete", "speedy delete", "delete with a PROD", without a single friendly word being said to the new editor.  I wonder if the inexperienced new editor wondered if use of a cattle prod was being proposed.  Might this not be perceived as "biting the newbie"?  I assume good faith regarding all these editors, but ask if we are not sometimes too quick to judge and too slow to take a deeper and kinder look?


 * Here we have an article with problems that are entirely amenable to correction by normal editing processes. Let's keep and improve this article.