Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Farm Water Coalition


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

California Farm Water Coalition

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been tagged for a number of years for a variety of issues, including lack of notability and having no reliable sources. It was actually tagged as a PROD in 2009, but the PROD was contested with the promise to introduce sources to the article. That never happened, and the article has been pretty much sitting here dormant since. The arguments for the PROD still apply, namely that there is nothing that distinguishes this particular non-profit as notable, and that while mention of the organization does appear in a few third party sources, they are trivial mentions at best. Rorshacma (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This organization has been a major player in California water policy for decades and has been discussed in many books and dozens of newspaper articles. Though many can be described as "trivial mentions", cumulatively, they demonstrate notability.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It might be a boring topic, but this organization is notable. It is regularly quoted in the media when water policy comes up and has helped shape California's water laws.  This assertion can be verified by the org's frequent mentions in the congressional record and by books written on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, then, can we get some of these sources listed or introduced to the article? I have absolutely no problem withdrawing this deletion nomination if it turns out that there is sufficient notability, but just saying that there are plenty of sources and then not actually referencing the article doesn't solve the article's issues that caught my attention in the first place.  As I noted, I myself am having difficulty finding the proper sources to establish notability, so some of you who are more familiar with the group and its activities might have a lot better luck.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2012 (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.