Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Crisis (Australia)

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 (n.b., but I've userfied it to User:Symode09/Water Crisis (Australia)). Proto::type 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Crisis (Australia)

Water Crisis (Australia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Original research essay, contains duplicate material with articles such as dryland salinity and global warming. Endorsed deletion proposal was contested on my talk page. Please avoid any "AfD jargon" as we are dealing with a newbie who has made an effort to address the concerns raised. MER-C 08:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We should clean it up, not delete it. It's an important issue, and he's tried. If it was wikified, it'd be fine. Add some sources as well. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 08:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I co-prod'd the article with the following comments: "Supposition, duplication of info already on other articles (salinity, global warming), plus the above stated reasons". Although a very well-written piece, it is original research. Some of the links are non-specific, they just point to a general page, and at the very least support the original research theory. Bubba hotep 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is still just an essay and would require massive reconstruction if it was to meet our usual requirements for what we include here. It was requested that we avoid AfD jargon so I encourage the author to read the policies himself. Basically we require ways of verifying the information using reliable sources. Reliable sources usually means independent sources that we can trust. Also we don't allow original research. Generally what you want to refrain from is posting your own ideas on the subject and not ask the reader questions inside the text. Sorry this one fails, don't let it discourage you. Happy editing, MartinDK 08:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although reluctantly, because it's better than 99% of what turns up here. Where it falls down is that it seems to involve Original Research (presenting solutions and explaining why the government hasn't done X thing is always risky, and you'll need sources to show that these are in fact the best solutions and that this is why the government hasn't acted) and also to duplicate other articles, with much broader sources. What I would suggest as the best option is to hunt out sources for everything that isn't already covered in Water crisis and move everything that can be moved to that article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above. Let it grow inside Water crisis until it is mature enough to get its own article. Also keep in mind that most articles here don't start out as long finished articles. Usually they start as a stub and some of the best ones actually start out as sections in a broader article. Just keep trying, use the help that is available here and try to take advantage of what is already written here by letting it grow from a broader article. MartinDK 09:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly original research. This article has a number of points, but is an essay and original research. Try writing other articles, please don't be discouraged. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a well-written article; the author needs to read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles for guidance. This is an important topic and has been discussed in such arenas as BBC Radio 4 in the UK, but the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. It is a noble attempt and describing an important topic and the author is to be commended for this. Writing for an encyclopedia is a different discipline than writing an essay. (aeropagitica) 22:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, you notice how I said piece not article. The author definitely should be commended, I would like to make clear, also. Bubba hotep 22:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Either delete or redirect to Drought in Australia not synonomous but perhaps near enough--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. While a good article could be written on this topic as most Australian cities face ongoing water supply problems, unfortunately it is original research at the moment. It has been a key issue in the past few state elections notably the West Australian, Queensland and the current Victorian elections. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite, The current content is more or less original research, that much is certain. Still, I feel that an article of the particular Australian circumstances, and the public reaction (water restrictions, etc), is probably worth having. Lankiveil 09:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC).

• Keep I am the origional author. I can definately see whaere you are coming from and the problems with the article. Should I aldo remove the solution sections?

symode09 02:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Userfy as essay which has merit, but not as an article in its current state. Ansell 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. MER-C 12:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OR. WMMartin 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• KeepI agree with other comments about the issues with this article, however I don't think the article is as far from being acceptable as others seem to think. What it really needs is a section to establish the nature of water shortage problem that is specfic to Australia, eg Australia has lowest rainfall of any continent, etc. The author has indicated they are open to improvement.--Oz lowman 03:13, 29 November 2006 (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.