Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Water Organization

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. NW (Talk) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World Water Organization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable NGO, fails WP:ORG -- minimal news coverage (3 hits in GNews). References on the page mainly establish that other organizations mentioned in the article exist. Article created and expanded by employee who is clearly seeking to raise its profile (heavy on "Mission"); this wouldn't matter if there were sources to write a proper article, but there aren't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.
Hmm... A spammy entry by a single purpose account, also presumably a COI. This org certainly sounds notable reading the entry, but their webpage is a single page with no links, and it's not even the first Google hit for "World Water Organization". And there's a distressingly low number of Gnews hits. It does seem to be involved with the UN somehow, but it's not clear how exactly. Needs betting sourcing, less promotion, and some evidence that it meets the notability requirements. Hairhorn (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one paragraph of copyvio text from the entry. I expect there's lots more. Hairhorn (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskedasticity and Hairhorn: Thanks for your comments. I do work on behalf of the WWO, however, I am undertaking the work pro-bono because it is an organization and a cause I care deeply about. The organization is an up and coming non-profit organization which has already run one conference at the UN - with over 300 delegates from close to twenty countries - and sponsored an earlier conference by NYIT. The Executive Board members discussed are all former employees of the United Nations, but continue to undertake special projects through the United Nations - even if not publicly recognized as doing so. The additional board members are senior members of the United Nations, the World Bank and private industry as well. Unfortunately, the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director have not place strong importance on developing fancy websites or wiki articles to promote their causes and achievements in the past - which makes it difficult to reference everything they have achieved. As with many who work in Government and UN circles, much of the work they are involved in happens behind closed doors in closed session diplomatic meetings. The work they have done publicly is widely recognized, and I continue to add websites justifying the claims made in their biographies. These are incredibly learned people who achieved a significant deal in their lifetimes. I recognize you desire wiki pages to adhere to editing standards and I continue to improve the articles to meet this standard. I am a Masters graduate and understand the importance of referencing and avoiding plagiarism or copyright abuse. As a new user, I was inadequately prepared with sufficient references at my first posting - this is something I recognize and accept. Further, I recognize the WWO is one of many organizations in this field. The WWO does not seek to compete with others, but instead to complement their work, to contribute where it can and to build cooperative arrangements with other similarly minded organizations. I believe your criticisms and call for deletion of the organization's wiki page and the three bios is unnecessarily unfair and aggressive. I welcome comments that will assist myself and others who seek to strengthen the credibility of these wiki pages rather than being so quick to have them removed. Shannon.barnes (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/reply First, sorry if I have offended anyone, it was not my intentions. Since you just admitted working for the WWO, then I just want to let you know that there is Conflict Of Interest regarding your articles since you are a new user [1] or WP:COI. Therefore try to be less personal. I totally respect you values, engagements but try to keep a neutral point of view. Finally, I have seen that you have put alot of effort in finding sources/references but from what I can see, the majority of those references only mentionned WWO's name (such as being a sponsor) and does not really talks about this organization itself; there are not strong enough in supporting the article's notability... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly delete with no prejudice to recreating if the organisation gets more reliable sources in the future. Their website seems to have moved up in Google's ranking to first in the list, but it's still a one page work-in-progress and furthermore a primary source. Found some fleeting mentions of the organisation on CNBC and the UN, but that does not seem to qualify as significant enough coverage to me as yet. I have dropped a few lines of friendly advice on article creator's page. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the COI editor's statement that this is an up and coming organisation probably explains why there is no coverage of significance to establish notability. No prejudice against recreation when it does become notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userify. Two conferences a;ready held is enough for notability since there are sources for them. I rewrote a good part of it to a less promotional tone, to assist in rewriting the rest either now, or after the next conference and some more references to it. DGG ( talk ) 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two conferences with virtually no news coverage. Yes, there are sources for the fact that the conferences happened -- but did anyone pay attention? Again: a total of 3 Gnews hits for this thing -- pretty slim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well referrenced and notable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It has been more than a week since I have pointed out the problems related to the references/sources (see above) and yet the situation has not changed. Author has not provided any additional sources in which the article really talks ABOUT this organistion and not just mentionning its name such as being a sponsor. (Maybe there is just no more references that talks about WWO? In this case, notability is questionable...)Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question -- what are we going to do with this one? I repeat that there are no sources to write a proper article here -- if it is kept, most of the text will have to be removed anyway. (Some of it is simply off-topic, e.g. the big MDG list.) I'd be delighted to see improvement instead of deletion, but I don't see how that is possible. I simply think it is too early to have an article on this organization -- it might become notable, but it isn't yet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.