Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Highlands Water


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Central Highlands Water

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded this unreferenced stub article with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by its creator User:Billinghurst with the following rationale "t is as notable as the other water authorities, it meets the criteria for inclusion". Sigh. Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't even meet our criteria for rationals in deletion, but a deprod means we get to discuss it here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam ("it exists!" Nope, sorry, that's not enough). Coverage of the company is limited to few mentions in passing, and one or two reports of minors scandals/fines in local press (The Courier (Ballarat)). That's not enough to meet cited notability guidelines. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I am a bit in two minds on this one. Yes, it does not make the GNG line in my view, but no, it is part of series of articles as per the navigation box WaterVictoria so perhaps it should be there for consistency.  On the other hand, there are a few other smaller water authorites in the same group as this one in the navigation box which are equally not notable in their own right, so perhaps the better option is to merge all the weaker ones into one article and have redirects to them?  They do definitely deserve some dueweight material somewhere.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for ignoring the other commentary. This is a state government legislative-derived body set up under the Water Industry Act 1994 (under previous legislation, Central Highlands Region Water Corporation) and it is specifically mentioned in the Act. [Noting that the current water authority is a successor to previous bodies dating back to the 1860s and so built one of the earliest reservoirs in Victoria .] It provides annual reports to the parliament of the State of Victoria and has a government appointed board. It has the regional responsibility for water supply (groundwater and waterways), sewerage, trade waste, and recycled water, the management of 1.25 billion dollars in assets, and the management of land assets. It was the lead in the provision of the larger pieces of water piping infrastructure in Victoria. You cannot deny that it has notability, though you are disputing that it has encyclopaedic notability. So please don't try your Yellow-Pages approach, it just displays your lack of research of the topic matter, and that we don't have enough people who like to write about such article topics.

It would also appear that you are cherry-picking one article and not making the comparison on like articles of water authorities/companies either for the state of Victoria, or for other water companies of the world, see Category:Water companies by country. It will be interesting time as you look through the other articles about water authorities and make true comparison on their referenced materials. I would reflect that the criteria as set out doesn't well represent how water companies/authorities or other have notability. So if you think that this organisation itself is not notable, I believe that this should be collectively managed against the remainder, not in isolation.

Water management in dry continents like Australia are a significant component of infrastructure management, water management, waterway health, and waste management. Though maybe for those in affluent global north countries with water abounding that goes suitably unnoticed or not understood. Whilst these may not meet the current trend of notability of individual insignificant sport stars, insignificant football clubs, or minor characters in a television series, they are truly significant and notable for what they do. By your approach the water authority would only be notable if it is involved in a large sex scandal, financial scandal, major water pollution, or significant fish kills. What an interesting way to design an encyclopaedia to not be able to understand the water and catchment management of Victoria. Do we plan to pick off the catchment management authorities next which work hand in glove with the water authorities?

Google news search shows over 300 news mentions of the water authority in media, predominantly this is coincident with the regional media that covers that region, or can. There is coverage in the capital city dailies though it is unusual for such mentions compared to the water authorities of the capitals.

And NO, I still have no particular interest in writing the article. And I didn't know that it was that necessary to sing and dance to rebut a "prod" where the article stub has been here 6 years and the prod was pretty unresearched and uninformed. [P.S. You can take your damn "sigh" and stick it with your pomposity. That you wrote an unreferenced op-ed article for Signpost which was simply your opinion, nothing more, is not relevant here. Please climb off your self-mounted horse. We all do our work around here.] — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not talk about high horses, because we might as well talk about editors who ignore WP:NORG and create spam articles making other editors waste time at AfD, right? So let's focus on the arguments, not on editors. Now, regarding your arguments. 1) There is no special provision that organization connection to the state, or the size of its assets or budgets, is sufficient for notability. (It could actually be a good idea to start a discussion at NORG about this, as far as I can tell, technically even top level government organisations like ministries are not auto-notable, through TBH I've always thought they were). 2) And that other water authorities have some articles, some of them also pretty bad, is plain WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ex. City West Water looks as bad as the article we are discussing right now, and I have time and will I'll see about future noms, assuming no better arguments suggesting inherent notability of such organizations are presented 3) If you think there is sufficient media coverage to make this org pass presence, please cite such sources, not just the fact that 'if you search for it on google or such, we get hits'. Such hits fall under passing mention, and until otherwise proven, they do not help to satisfy WP:GNG requirement for significant in-depth coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Many passing mentions, but nothing to meet GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2019 (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.