Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network for a New 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 was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Network for a New Culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no reliable sources in the articles, and Google News shows no newspaper coverage, not even mere announcements of events. either press releases (though I would expect some announcements might be found in a more thorough search) ,. Having a few notable speakers is not evidence of notability  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an odd one -- the organization's web site tells us that it isn't actually an organization (it's more of an "inspiration").  I tried to get some notion of notability by looking at the external links (there are no references in the article), and found that those that weren't dead links didn't really discuss the organization(?) itself.  Instead, they were just blogs from individuals who related their experience at the organization's camps.  I just don't see any notability here.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It looks like there should be a general article about the movement as a whole.  See here for example.  Aoziwe (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as I've been watching this and, at this time, my searches have found nothing better and there's nothing else minimally convincing from the article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)



A check on this group tells me that it clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, so I've tagged it for deletion. You can remove the tag if you want, but it that case it will just go to WP:AFD, in which case it will most likely be deleted anyway. That is, unless you can show that the group meets our notability guidelines. Herostratus 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully think we (NFNC) might qualify as notable. I have added some of the speakers who have presented - many who have internal wikipedia links. I have not yet removed the warning, hoping that soem of the NFNC folx will see the specific instructions in the warning and help copy edit and add content. Thanks for your patience and assistance in keeping wikipedia accurate and relavant. Paxuscalta 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tag, because it's a time bomb - 5 days with the tag and the article is automatically deleted. And it's intended that the tag (the ProD tag) be removed if any one persons objects. The alternative would be to send the article to WP:AFD, where it can be be discussed by the community at large for seven days. I'm mulling whether to do that or not. Herostratus 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dearest Herostratus: Thank you for pulling the time bomb tag, i am not sure best how to deal with this situation, so your assistance like this is appreciated. it also makes me feel a bit less frantic in dealing with this.

i may have also made the problem of your verification a bit worse by actually misnaming the group. I have listed it as "Network for New Culture" which is what i have always called it. The proper name is "Network for A New Culture". so verifying us with search engine searches on the group (especailly if the entire name is in quotes) MAY have missed articles about us.

Another member of NFNC has read the criteria for group inclusion in wikipedia and believes that it is based on two or more non-trivial articles about the group being published. He has done some searching and found the following: (i quote from his msg - having "wikiafied" the links for easy access):

“The Little Community That Could” This is an article that was written by Geoph Kozeny, and was published in New ConneXion in May 2000 New ConneXion article

So now we have three articles that were published in print magazines or newspapers, and one of them was picked up by another magazine and reprinted.

"The Heart Holds the Power" This is an article written by Teryani Riggs, which was published in Talking Leaves, a print magazine, in the Winter 1999 issue: Heart Holds the Power article

That same article was published in New ConneXion in July 1999 reprint

New ConneXion is a print journal:

“For 14 years New ConneXion has been a leading voice for the new consciousness in the Pacific Northwest. Six times a year 35,000-40,000 free copies are picked up at over 600 health food stores, bookshops, restaurants and cafes, libraries, health centers, universities, shops and street boxes in Portland and throughout Oregon and Washington. The journal reaches over 80,000 readers in print, and our website is getting a million hits a month.” Here are some links to articles on NFNC, drawn from a google search for:  NFNC “New Culture” Intentional Communities Directory: Listing & description Both printed and on-line

Newspaper article! Washington Spark – June 25, 2005 – p24

Online Review: Firetender.org

Talk given at SC95, by Sten Linnander; published by sexuality.org

- (end of quoted msg)

If you think this article should be moved to the WP:AFD for discussion by the greater wikipedia community, we will certainly defer to your judgement - we are novices in this and dont want to run over any of the appropriate protocols or be seen as trying to push our way in.

We have already discussed that if the article is deleted, we would copy the final version and await several articles which have been written for submission to larger subscription periodicals and if they are printed, then we would resubmit with additional recognition.

Should i be adding these above articles to the "External Links" section ?

Thank you again for yor guidance in this.

Paxuscalta 13:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article to the correct name. No, I'm not going to send it to WP:AFD, although another editor might. But if you put your references you cited here into the body of the article, you should be OK. Just put them in the External links section. If you want to use footnotes, where individual statements link to a particular source(s), see Footnotes. Cheers, Herostratus 14:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article. i actually need to do this for the Nuclear information and resource service article i edited, which which got saved as lower case for most of the groups organization ame and should be capitaized - can you direct me to hos this is done ? i know ho to create a new article, but how do i redirect existing links to the old one ?

As you suggested, i added the articles in a new section under External Links. We are of course happy you dont feel the need to send us to WP:AFD. Your help is appreciated. Paxuscalta 13:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.   The article notes: "At Network for a New Culture (NFNC) camps, currently located in Oregon, West Virginia, and Hawaii, adults come together to learn about and practice ways of living together different from the norms of mainstream culture, experimenting with new ways of relating to themselves, to their work, to others, and to the world. Workshops and other activities encourage participants to explore intimacy, freedom, and radical personal responsibility, with the goal of fostering the personal empowerment and emotional resilience that would allow a cooperative, nonviolent culture to emerge. The strong relationships that form at camp create the basis for a vibrant community all year long."  The article notes: "'I think I can! I think I can!'Most of us remember the kids' story about the little train trying to go up a huge, steep hill. The moral was that we can succeed at a seemingly impossible task if only (a) we believe that we can do it, and (b) we have the determination to follow through until the goal is reached. Well, that was the lesson I learned all over again at last August's 'Summer Camp,' held near Portland, Oregon and sponsored by the Network For a New Culture (NFNC). NFNC was originally inspired by ZEGG, a 19-year-old German community based on scientific research, personal growth, healing, free sexuality, and the development of a new culture.  The North American network has, however, developed a focus and a culture of its own, emphasizing a multi-pronged approach that includes personal growth, communication skills, open sexuality, and building community, although the culture they're evolving is not yet a 'textbook' process." The Washington Spark newspaper article mentioned by in 2006 on the talk page (and in the collapsed text above) is a dead link. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Network for a New Culture to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Well, couple things. First, DGG is remarkably inclusionistic, and so it he thinks the article should go, that's something that I respect. Second, when we're looking for coverage, we're looking for notable organs... articles in (let's say) the LA Times or Der Spiegel etc. would be nice, but we can't always get that, and so settle for the the Harrisburg Patriot-News or Fresno Bee or so forth. But New Culture, what is that? What is the Journal of Conscious Living and the Washington Spark? Sure we consider some specialist organs to be notable, but none of these have Wikipedia articles, and that makes me wonder how notable the are. The WP:N guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to which I always add "and do not have a readership of, like, just 3 people and squirrel". Anybody can create an on-line magazine, you don't even need a mimeo machine anymore. I'm not feeling positive about those sources as being sufficiently notable to confer notability on the subject. Herostratus (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just not notable enough in the end. Passing interest mentions; not significant coverage in notable "organs" as noted above. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hello, Cunard.  Thanks for the cites.  Only three this time? :)  The first cite (the article about the camps) is one of the ones I referred to in my earlier posting re: blogs about an individual's experience at a camp.  But the second one was new.  However, it was written by a member of the Network (Geoph Kozeny, now deceased), as can be seen here.  So, it can't be used to establish notability.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, only three citations this time because I was unable to find more coverage about the subject. :) Based on your observation that the first article is not an independent source and and Herostratus' observation that the other two sources are very small publications, I am switching to delete. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Switching from "keep" to "delete" per Herostratus' and NewYorkActuary's comments. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2016 (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.