Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Water Centre

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Water Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable Centre. One source with an in-passing mention does not appear to be enough to establish notability. No hits on Google News. Quite a lot of Ghits, but nothing that seems to be substantial. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Crusio (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try Google News archives? You can see the contributions of the centre there more clearly. It's kind of ridiculous since the intellectual authority of the centre clearly exceeds that of Northern Virginia Community College, for instance. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only get 1 hit from that link, the centre's own website. If you can find more more, you can perhaps add that to the article. As for that college, yep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except NoVa is ranked one of the top community colleges in the nation. Dude. Check your links? Anyhow, check the archives -- see the centre's role in assessing Australia's fluoride scandal as a public research body ?Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely notable and asserts as such in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been no assertion of notability, it would have been a speedy. Two universities having a common research program is not very unusual. Here in France, basically any research project worth anything is a collaborative effort between at least two universities or research organisms. That doesn't make all those projects notable, only if we have independent reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets a decent amount of coverage in Google News, looks like there is enough to meet WP:NGO. I added one source to the article, certainly potential for a decent article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, and article can be improved from its current condition. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable institution, worthy of notice, meets WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (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.