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. While more participation would have been ideal, closing this as keep per the short discussion herein. Due to stated limited participation, and the one "weak keep" !vote, this close is a rather "weak keep" one. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Water Efficiency

[edit]

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

delete and cluebat AfC reviewer As created, contained a copyvio (a sentence ripped verbatim from the article subject's 'about me' page, which I deleted). What there is here is a bad synthesis of primary sources, such as sourcing that one of their activities is research to a grant award and a press release about an educational program. The sources given are all 'examples', not significant coverage. After scrolling through the first ten pages or so of Google results, I can't find anything about them that isn't from some other organization they are affiliated with. While they are obviously a 'reputable' industry group there's nothing to base any kind of a real article on, and what remains is just 'this not-notable organization exists'. Revent^talk 05:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The sources are not so great, but I think these sort of pass as WP:RS giving us a WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tony. We tend to give public benefit corporations more leeway in primary sourcing. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2014 (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.