Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated urban water management (IUWM)


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. No prejudice against a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Integrated urban water management (IUWM)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. I would suggest merging to Integrated Urban Water Management, but there isn't a single page that links to that article, so I'm prodding it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so there are now three articles linking to the IUWM page I created today and the title does not have the acronym anymore. If you could kindly point out what areas of the article do not satisfy WP:Original research and/or WP:Synthesis, I will address them.--Miguelaaron (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to merge with a three-year old article titled, i.e. Integrated Urban Water Management that has been abandoned. I would suggest nominating this article for deletion rather than my article Integrated urban water management which is new and of relevant and useful content to water practitioners in the field.--Miguelaaron (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't want to delete this article, because you created it! Anyway, removing the acronym doesn't really change the situation here. It's not that it isn't well-written; it's that it comes across more as an essay (or maybe even an ad) instead of an encyclopedia article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it has better information in it now than it did when I nominated it, but it's still difficult to tell because it reads overall more like a commentary relating to it than as an encyclopedia article about it. Originally it resembled an article that someone might write with the title "Pigeons" that, instead of beginning by explaining what a pigeon is and providing general information about pigeons, began, "Many cities are troubled by the large number of pigeons that live in them." For example, you don't tell us what the topic is until the third paragraph#8212;and even there, you worded it to make it look like the topic is "a paper published by the United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP)" rather than IUWM. Take a look at WP:Lead section and consider moving the third paragraph, with the accompanying bullet points, and rewording the first sentence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. I have reworded a bit and moved the third paragraph into the lead. The goal here is to generate a "stub" or snapshot that that can be linked to from other urban water mgmt. articles. and quickly summarizes the few major descriptions of IUWM and approaches in addressing / implementing IUWM into urban water mgmt. planning.--Miguelaaron (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn I withdraw my nomination for deletion. The article has really shaped up. I understand my withdrawal is nonbinding, but my original concerns are, in my opinion, obsolete. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the "nomination for deletion" box from the top of the article as well.--Miguelaaron (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is neither yours nor mine to do. I'm restoring it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your restoring the box or the nomination for deletion? If you have no more grievances and withdrawn your nomination, why do you care that I take it off? OK, so I will leave it there. When does it come down and who does that? Please explain.--Miguelaaron (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Because those are the rules of the process. The person who nominates an article for deletion doesn't own the process, nor does the article's author. Once it's begun, the community owns it and it goes by the rules. See WP:Articles for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * fair enough.--Miguelaaron (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (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.