Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Map


 * 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 and clean up. FT2 (Talk 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although only few comments were made, the policy-based result seems fairly clear-cut. There are two issues - 1/ should it be deleted as advertising or copyvio, or 2/ is there verifiable reliable source evidence to support a view that it is notable. The policy and guidelines on advertizing spam ("adspam") and copyright violation ("copyvio") are fairly clear cut -- pure adspam and pure copyvio with nothing notable, can be speedy deleted. But if there is the basis of a good article, on a notable topic, and the copyvio can be readily cleaned or rewritten, and the NPOV bias from advertizing made more encyclopedic and balanced in a neutral manner with other viewpoints, then advertizing and copyvio themselves are not sufficient for deletion; instead we aim to remove violations and improve the stub to encyclopedic quality if it isn't too much of a stretch.

From evidence provided in the article, its talk page and comments in this AFD (including the styling and citing of the article), there seems little doubt that the topic is notable. Green Map seems widespread, a quick search confirms the cites in the article are bona fide, and the statement (below, by User:ChrisLamb) about National and International attention does seem to be supported by evidence of media attention, even if not the kind that all editors would hope to see. The article itself is not in a bad state, it's on a notable topic, and should be relatively easy to clean of remaining copyvio (which should be done) (and POV if any), so deletion seems unwarranted.

Green Map

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it has had several editors during its lifetime. Corvus cornix 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep- While it is advertising, this organazation is notable if we use WP:CORP and acording to said policy we should deal with he article by:
 * 1)Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
 * 2)Delete remaining advertising content from the article,
 * 3)Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion instead.
 * So even though there is a lot of advertising we should try to clean the article up since it is notable ChrisLamb 22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources? One's an email, two are the company's website.  Corvus cornix 22:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- on the article in questions talk page you can find several newspaper articles (including one from the Boston Globe)that are about Green Maps ChrisLamb 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All of which are referred to as "fluffy pieces". Corvus cornix 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Whether or not those pieces are "Fluffy" or "Feel Good" news does not matter the fact is that Green Maps have attracted National and International attention; making it notable under WP:CORP's section on non-profit organizations ChrisLamb 00:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete while not quite a copy-vio, it comes very close. If the similarities between the two pages don't demonstrate this to be advertising I don't know what will.  (I found the page by cutting and pasting "inclusive participation in sustainable community development around the world" which is word for word in the article!  As are numerous other statements.Balloonman 03:46, 30 June 2007 (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.