Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charity: 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charity: water

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

Not blatant advertising in the sense of CSD, the article as stands is not encyclopaedic and is self-promoting. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written, but the subject is notable: featured in a NYT column, covered in a CNET article, covered in a CNN broadcast, fundraiser covered in Bloomberg, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs considerable rewrite, but I find it hard to object to an article about a charity being somewhat self-promotional. Rjwilmsi 07:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability of the subject is notable so deletion isn't appropriate. But Rjwilmsi's remarks are in opposition to Wikipedia policy. Self-promotion is unacceptable no matter what the cause. -- Atama ^chat 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it needs a heavy rewrite. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep But since when do charities get a pass on promoting themselves? Needs a ground-up rewrite with sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But it reads like and advert and needs to be rewritten completely. Bradybd (talk) 05:43, 10 August 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.