Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Home


 * 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   keep. The original nomination was very clearly valid and the early participation would have supported a delete outcome - but a wholesale rewrite of the article late in the AfD process by appears to have done a good job of salvaging a sourced encyclopedic article here. I can certainly see potential concerns that this may still duplicate content at Green building, but any merge discussions in that vein don't need an AfD. ~ mazca  talk 01:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Home

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.  Access Denied –  talk to me  05:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no prejudice for recreation as a redirect to Green building; a how-to guide.--res Laozi speak  05:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - This article would have perhaps been more suited to a speedy or even as far as a proposed deletion, it has only just been created and I can't see this discussion resulting in anything but a deletion. --§ Pump me up  14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy - Article is just a how-to guide and could probably be deleted with a PROD. Joe Random   Contact Me  20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Silver seren's reasoning. (at bottom) →Gƒoley Four   (GSV)  23:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikiHow or wikibooks and redirect to green building. This is a plausible search term, and so should not be a redlink, and the content may be wanted in one of the wikis that does accept how-to guides.— S Marshall  T/C 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 a 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. Cullen328 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's one problem with your rationale. Yes, the subject is notable, but the problem is, we already have an article on the subject: Green building. And there's nothing salvagable in this article to merit a keep or a merge. The author did work very hard on it, and I commend him for his tenacity, but that has no relevance on whether or not an article should be kept. It's best to delete and redirect it to Green building.--res Laozi speak  11:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I appreciate your input, Laozi, but I disagree. Let's take a look at the article Green building and see whether it adequately addresses the topic "Green home".  The lead paragraph makes it clear that the article covers the construction of new buildings.  A couple of paragraphs later, the article says "Green building does not specifically address the issue of the retrofiting existing homes. (sic)"


 * "Green building" as described in that article is the construction of new buildings carried out by professionals, such as architects, contractors and property managers. The buildings include the full gamut from residential structures to office buildings, shopping centers, schools and colleges, warehouses, factories and stadiums.  The "Green home" topic, on the other hand, is limited to residential structures, but is not limited to the construction of new buildings.  It also includes remodeling, renovation, retrofitting, and the ongoing selection of appliances, furniture and surface finishes such as paint, carpet and hard flooring, as well as landscaping issues.  It includes issues pertaining to how a home is operated on a day-to-day basis, such as recycling, energy and water efficiency, and selection of less toxic cleaning supplies.  Most decisions within the green house topic are made by homeowners and renters, not by professionals.


 * Clearly, there is some overlap between the topics, and the better developed "Green building" article furnishes a template and some resources for improving the "Green home" article. However, I conclude that the topics are clearly enough delineated that we need a "Green home" article as well as a "Green building" article. As for Laozi's opinion that "there's nothing salvagable in this article", I think that I can spend about an hour editing it if the decision is made to keep it, and it will then be well on its way to being a halfway decent Wikipedia article.Cullen328 (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't a valid topic for an article, only that, as of now, there isn't enough cited encyclopedic content to merit a separate entry from Green building. If you're willing to clean the article up before the AfD closes, I wouldn't hesitate to switch to a keep. --resident (talk)  12:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've begun the process of improving the article through "regular editing" which is a delightful alternative to deletion. Although it still needs lots of work, I think that is cleaner, and I hope that other editors will agree.  I will continue working on it in days to come.  I invite other editors to pitch right in and help.  Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Looked through both articles, and I believe there is enough content for both to exist. Not every building is a home.  There are laws affecting just homes, and laws affecting non-residual buildings.  And making an office building, factory, or restaurant green, is far different than that of the various size and types of houses.  I would suggest changing the name to environmentally friendly home, but the media sources always use the term "green" so I suppose we're stuck with it.  You can paint your house green, and it not be green after all. Recently Green Restaurant went to AFD, Articles_for_deletion/Green_restaurants, many giving reasons and sources to keep it, but it deleted because it had some copyvios in it, with the administrator saying to just recreate it from scratch, strangely enough.  We still have Green Restaurant Certification of course.  Anyway, any type of green building that has enough original content to fill their own article, should be kept.   D r e a m Focus  21:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I've just finished rewriting the article. Obviously, there's still a lot of work to do, but it's alright for now. Green building is clearly the overarching article for this subject, but I do believe that there should be specific articles on the different types of green buildings and the specific innovations that are used for them. This is definitely true for Green homes, as there is a significant amount of literature and news reports on the subject, showing that Green homes have become their own topic as of late, separate from Green buildings as a generality. Silver  seren C 21:36, 27 November 2010 (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.