Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground O.N.E


 * 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 speedy delete. Article has been deleted by per WP:G7 on behalf of the article creator. (non-admin closure) —  Newslinger  talk   17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Ground O.N.E

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only significant coverage I could find for this organization was the links from The Renewal Project, which are already used as sources. Even then, the sources aren't significant, and even seem to be rather promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Ground ONE has its own webpage (https://www.ground-one.org/). While I understand that that cannot be used in its article, it shows that there are links about this organization outside the Renewal Progress which were not cited. Also, please note, that both articles referenced were meant to explain the significance of the organization as opposed to promoting it. "5 Ways Students Can Become Civic Leaders" gives insight into the history of Ground ONE and encourages other youth to do similar projects, it does not directly promote Ground ONE for any monetary or publicity gain. The second article is simply a quote from one of the organization's founders in a listing of other impactful organizations. Its main focus is listing successful groups as opposed to directly promoting them. I fully understand your concerns and I will add a notice asking for the article to be revamped as soon as possible and I would appreciate it if the article is not deleted just yet. Also, I've just reviewed the list of Wikipedia policies and I can't find which polices that my article has violated. The Renewal Project is run by Atlantic Media,one of the largest media companies in the US (it also controls The Atlantic Monthly, a popular American magazine). How are my sources not significant? Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 13:44, 30 June 2018 (EST)
 * You may need to read WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Essentially, while The Renewal Project links are a good start, it's still only one source. Ideally, we'd need several. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the Renewal Project is an independent, online secondary media source, I believe that the the article's topic is inherently notable according to WP:CORP. Regarding your first rules, it is true that there isn't a whole lot of literature on Ground ONE, but that doesn't directly break the rules you showed me. None of the article's notability is derived from other wikipedia articles or the article's content itself. The article isn't ideal(I have already classified it as a stub), but I don't believe that it is objectively illegal according to Wikipedia rules. Also, the publisher Rowman and Littlefield (which has no non-business connection to me or Ground ONE) will be publishing a book on civic engagement shortly, which includes Ground ONE. I would be happy to contact them for additional reference material in the coming weeks or months. Can I please be granted a stay of deletion until then? I have also added the notice to my article asking for improvement from other Wikipedians. Also, just curious, when will this discussion continue? Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 17:16, 6 July 2018 (EST)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question. Will my comments in defense of my article still be visible to those in the discussion after it was relisted? Also, I'm sorry for deleting the deletion notice from my article; I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy regarding deletion discussions. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 20:16, 8 July 2018 (EST)
 * Yes, your comments are still visible. Newslinger (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:ORG due to lack of coverage from a reliable secondary source. According to their site, The Renewal Project is an blog created by Allstate and Atlantic57 (a public relations firm), not a publication with a proper editorial process. Newslinger (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, while The Renewal Project is a collaboration between Allstate and Atlantic Media Strategies(a.k.a Atlantic57), Atlantic57 is not a public relations firm. It is, according to one of its own sites, the consulting and creative division of The Atlantic, which is most definitely a publication with proper editorial process. Therefore, isn't The Renewal Project effectively an affiliate ofThe Atlantic? Link to aforementioned site: https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/06/introducing-the-renewal-project-a-social-newsroom-at-americas-intersection-of-innovation-community-and-social-good/486371/ (please note the explicit text in the article where it says that the Renewal Project is the result of a definite partnership with The Atlantic(not just Atlantic57), which is once again a very well known publication and a reliable secondary source) Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 19:59,12 July 2018 (EST)
 * For reference, here's Atlantic57's case study for The Renewal Project. I don't think that two articles from The Renewal Project would satisfy WP:ORGCRIT ("multiple reliable sources"), but perhaps others can offer a second opinion. Newslinger (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment(backed up by the cited article), Atlantic 57 is also a direct reflection of The Atlantic publication. They even share some parts of their staff and nearly all of their publication process. The article you posted explains the the Renewal Project helps create articles and explains new initiatives (from an independent 3rd party point of view) and gives them exposure. It doesn't say that Atlantic57 is a public relations firm.Respectfully, I don't see how that goes against Wikipedia policy for source material. Regarding the need for multiple sources, I totally see your point, but it is worth noting that both the articles I referenced have different authors and different content, not to mention different reference material. Can't that count as perhaps not two wholly different sources, but two different source reference points? Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 01:16,13 July 2018 (EST)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing Atlantic 57's case study on The Renewal Project, I'm not changing my delete vote. The case study states that The Renewal Project is "an integrated marketing campaign [...] reinforcing Allstate’s commitment to social good." This source is inherently unreliable, even if Atlantic 57 is branded as a consulting firm instead of a public relations firm. Newslinger (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. However, please remember that Atlantic 57 isn't even a firm in the first place. It, according to its own website, (https://www.atlantic57.com/our-story/) is the creative and consulting division of The Atlantic Magazine. Also, I fully comprehend your argument regarding Atlantic 57's Case Study on the Renewal Project. However, the integrated marketing campaign is a very small part of the actual article that you showed this discussion and isn't even mentioned past the first paragraph. Please note that the very case study that you cited also explicitly states that The Renewal Project directly reflects and creates "regular native and underwritten editorial content on The Atlantic." My point here is that Atlantic 57 is essentially The Atlantic Magazine. A bona fide part of a publication stil represents the publication. I won't deny that Atlantic 57 also does marketing, but that is only a very small fraction of everything it does. The specific articles that I used as reference on my Wikipedia article have absolutely no marketing done for Ground ONE. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 20:16,14 July 2018 (EST)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Newslinger: doesn't pass WP:GNG, and also fails WP:NCORP (if applicable). SportingFlyer  talk  06:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've read both of the documents you've listed and they are identical to what I've already been shown. Can you please explain your position?Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 21:54, 22 July 2018 (EST)

Hello, I've grown tired of debating my article. May I have permission to take it down and close the debate until I have more notable sources? I understand that my sources aren't exactly the most notable and I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to explain that to me. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 10:57, 25 July 2018 (EST)
 * The discussion will close around July 29. If you want to take the article down sooner, you can add the Db-g7 speedy deletion template to the top of the article and an administrator will delete it. Be sure to save any work you want to retain before you mark the article for speedy deletion. — Newslinger  talk  12:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have done this. Thank you for your help. Lalalucy123 tccsdnew 17:47, 26 July 2018 (EST)


 * 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.