Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megawatershed


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Megawatershed

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable term for normal hydrologic process. Appears to be advertising copy, though I tried to clean that up. Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Update:  The article has been moved to EarthWater Global the name of the company promoting the neologism. They appear to still be fairly non-notable as a company. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment -- I'm sorry, I moved this article at just the same time as Rocksandanddirt was submitting the AfD. It is now at EarthWater Global, the company that coined the term "megawatershed". This deletion debate should look into the notability of this company. It is possible that they are notable as providers of access to groundwater in developing countries, in which case an articel abotu the company may well pass WP:ORG. But I didn't check, so I'm not voting. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick look didn't provide any reliable sources on the company. (Google news had only a couple of items related to one of their officers being appointed to the board of another company).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be unhappy to lose all reference to it, since this is one of the areas notoriously underrepresented on Wikipedia. If we don't keep it as a standalone article, there should at least be an entry under water industry or similar. We do not have an article on "water development" which appears to be the term for companies building wells in the third world. This may be an entire industry Wikipedia has been overlooking. Of course we shouldn't make this about this specific company, but we should take the opportunity to review our coverage of their field of activity. --dab (𒁳) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * related articles appear to be water crisis and peak water. Also note Category:Water management authorities. But where do we cover companies that are involved in combatting the water crisis? Note Living Water International, a "faith-based" organization in the same field. This is going to be one major issue in the 21st century, and we'd better start scraping together information on it now. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * there are a number of articles on groundwater resource management, and water resources of (various locations), perhaps we need to think about how to coordinate all these things. My problem with this is the advertisement of the non-notable company regarding something that's not a real industry term.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yep, the article was flawed in its presentation, and "EarthWater" may not be notable enough for a standalone article. But it may be notable enough for a paragraph in a wider discussion of water development. I just noted the well-hidden and under-developed water management article, and in view of all the above, I would tend to vote split, put the hydrogeological parts treated under "megawatershed" under aquifer and the company info under water management. --dab (𒁳) 09:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as spamvertising, lack of notability for an article on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising, not notable. I don't see anything that could be salvaged for a merge/split/splitmerge. If it is notable within the context of other articles it would probably be better to start from scratch. Best, Verbal   chat  14:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable advertising proto-neologism (under original title) and company advertising blurb (under new title). No encyclopaedic content. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:04, 30 April 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.