Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photo Genesis (second nomination)

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. —Centrx→talk • 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Genesis

The article Photo_Genesis is an advertisment for a free online gallery of photos. It is not an encyclopedic article and is not written in a NPOV. = MidgleyDJ 21:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I read the article and thought it might be rescuable. I searched for Photo Genesis and found it to be many things, none of which except an RSS feed directory led to the gallery in question. I therefore conclude it is a vanity artcile - well how hard was that? They signed it! However I fear it if not notable, or, if it is notable, that notability is not asserted. Pity, cos it sounds pleasant. Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani^talk 22:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the main author of the Photo Genesis article and a non administrative ordinary member of Photo Genesis. On seeing the first nomination from the text provided, I understood that I could log an objection and remove the warning, which I did, sorry if I misunderstood that.

The text concerning why the article was nominated for deletion was not very clear and linked too numerous reasons as to why the nomination may have been made, nothing was specific that I could see.

The article was written as an information page on a small gallery that hosts work from like minded photographic artists, it was not intended as an advertisement or a vanity article; I singed it in my name as I prefer to do things in my name instead of an assumed identity for correctness. I added the owners name as he supplied much if the information that I used.

I am sorry it has been seen as a NPOV/advertisement article, I will therefore try to make the article compliant with Wikipedia policy.

I am new to Wikipedia so I would hope that other users might be a little understanding if I do not do things 100% correctly, everyone has to be new at some point, making mistakes is how we learn.

I do not understand the following statement.

“I searched for Photo Genesis and found it to be many things, none of which except an RSS feed directory led to the gallery in question”.

Is that important?

Google search places it a top listing and Yahoo 2nd place listing, is this what is meant by doing a search? I don’t know how RSS works.

The search term Photo Genesis may well return many things, Photo genesis however is one thing, a gallery and art community.

Thank you for you time and comments.

Photo Genesis 01:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Reply I apologise, I should have been clearer with regard to Ghits. The gallery is in top place in this search, but it is the gallery's own website. While this may seem strange to you the very fact that it is the gallery's own website means it is discounted - it is a self fulfilling prophecy of notability, you see. Any good webmaster can get their website to the top of the list in many (but not all) searches.

At position 5 is your own newsfeed in a newsfeed directory. Again, because it is your own it is discounted. Good webmastering, just not "Wikipedic" notability, I have scrolled (albeit reasonably quickly) through the first 100 results. Your own website appears a couple or more times, but I have not found any independent reference to the gallery. The major result is for some form of light based therapy. This tends to prove that it is not (yet) notable

The article is also written as a point of view article, rather than as secondary research. This means that it is not acceptable in its current form. That doesn't mean it is not a great PR piece, it just means it is not a Wikipedia article yet.

The best way of saving the article is an immediate and total rewrite to render it notable and encyclopaedic. Notability requires assertion, so reading WP:Notability and conforming with it is vital. Assertion is done with citation of external sources which are independent of your own article and which have themselves a distinct notability. The thing that will not save it is rhetoric (I appreciate you have not used it).

With regard to the source of the information it is certainly permitted to quote your sources, including the gallery owner. This is best done with references because Wikipedia articles are never signed. I think WP:OWN covers this, but I may be mistaken.

Fiddle Faddle 06:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or major revamp. This article is basically an advertisement. In order to make it a legitimate article you would need to remove all of the POV, all the first and second person usages, and essentially remove the majority of the information. In this case, a deletion may actually be preferable to revamp-involved things. --Niroht 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite. --Kuroki Mio 2006 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm didnt mention this in the nomination - but I dont think this website is notable enough (yet) for inclusion in wikipedia. I cant see how it could be re-written from a NPOV either and still have content. I maintain my original position that this article should be deleted. MidgleyDJ 23:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I am the main author of the Photo Genesis article and a non administrative ordinary member of Photo Genesis.

Aside from one very helpful user, there hasn’t exactly been much in the way of useful feedback. I am good with cameras and EV’s which may or may not be “notable” clearly I am not good with writing articles; shame that only one user could find the time to be productive with their comments and explanations. The lack of response would seem to imply that many don’t really have an opinion one way or another, judging by the huge response on some AFd’s

I am a staunch believer in helping to develop people in areas where they are not so strong. I don’t exactly feel inspired to re-write something that is just going to receive one word/phrase answers. “delete” Surly if one feels so strongly about something, then logically they should be able to express that with more than one word/phrase/sentence.

I could probably re write it into one short paragraph that has little educational value and comply with all except “notability” but if the general consensus is that Photo Genesis isn’t notable there isn’t anything I can do about that.

Thank you for the warm welcome!

Photo Genesis 01:35, 24 September 2006 (BST)

• Delete, spam for nonnotable service.--Peta 04:07, 27 September 2006 (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.