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. However, I hope to remind editors participating in AfDs not to WP:BITE new editors too hard. Some of the dismissive arguments I see here are verging towards the territory of this. Deryck C. 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water Charity

[edit]
Water Charity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I could find no evidence that this charity is located in California - or anywhere - and Charity Navigator never heard of them. Also, I could not find it in the official state listing of California corporations, although I suppose it could incorporated in another state and still operate in California. But the bottom line is that absolutely NOTHING about this charity could be verified. MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are not trying hard enough. We are a 501 (c)3 registered in California. There is plenty of documentation for this. JahSun (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is that a !vote to delete or what? MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the linked essay. That makes Cybercobra's thoughts on the matter clear. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Of The Many 3rd Party References

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/03/sea-levels-rise-in-the-maldives-and-drinking-water-diminishes/ http://positive-h2o.com/team_blog/2010/10/water-charity-parnership/ http://gwias.com/category/featured http://www.supsurfmag.com/features-stand-up-paddle/news/positive-h2o-201201011191/ http://onesimpleask.com/blog/2011/12/08/fixing-the-system-water-charity-ceo-jahsun-answers/

There are literally hundreds of them out there. If National Geographic is not enough for you, I may go and dig up the references in Newsweek, interviews on Telemundo & BBC etc. etc. It pains me that I must take time away from helping people to deal with this.

A bigger issue than me as CEO of a major company wasting my time with this frivolous harassment, is the fact that the two major users spearheading attacks on all of my pages are currently being investigated for wikihounding, User:Ism schism's first deletion call was dismissed, and both users have ignored attempts to reach out to them, going so far as to edit their talk pages and disguise things like the fact that until today User:Cybercobra's TODO lists was 2/3rds dealing with articles directly pertaining to me. JahSun (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis: In order: passing mention, not independent (partner org +H2O's blog), unreliable (short announcement by college club of event benefiting Water Charity), not independent (author affiliated with +H2O), not independent (author = JahSun) --Cybercobra (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+H20 is not affiliated with Water Charity. We have done a few projects and events together. You will notice that the fifth source asked me to answer their question of the month due to my notability and that of the organization.JahSun (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how you define "affiliated" (which is not the term I used). "Water Charity Partnership: +H2O is proud to be working with Water Charity[...]". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't seem to be trying at all. Here is a reference from the world's leading luxury resort chain... http://www.sixsenses.com/environment/WaterCharity.php
Again, that is just a website - not a WP:RS. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: OK, I finally did find confirmation that the charity exists, is a registered 501-c-3 charity, and is located in Crestline, California. That's a relief. But there is still no evidence that the group is notable, much less that it is as "major" as JahSun keeps claiming. Of the sources provided by JahSun, only one is from a reliable source - namely, the National Geographic Newswatch item - and all it does is confirm that one of the principals of the organization was there in the Maldives. The organization still lacks the required substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources and thus still fails Wikipedia's requirements for an article about a charity. MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like with your claim that we were not registered or able to be found in California, your other claims of lack of notability will be disproven by anyone who takes the time to do any research whatsoever. Our name is a fairly common grouping of words so a cursory Google search might be a bit tough, but if you persevere you will find that we are very notable. We've had world leaders personally thank us for our work... received grants from major foundations who do not give to fly-by-night organizations. A simple perusal of the list of our completed projects will show you that what we have accomplished is notable. It pains me to think that a charity organization must spend the capital it raises to higher a publicist in order to be of interest to some of you guys. We pride ourselves on the fact that all donations we receive go to actual projects. Your focus on PR rewards companies that only spend 20 to 30% of the funds they raise on projects or are headed by celebrities that do not actually do charity work (like recent revelations about Wyclef Jean's charity for Haiti).JahSun (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're also registered with the California State Attorney General's office[1]. Don't make too much of the "delinquent" status; I hear that the RCT is seriously backlogged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Call for dismissal of attack

I repeat that the two main proponents of this attack on me & my charitable organization are both under investigation for wikihounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cybercobra_.26_User:Ism_schism) defined as following an editor around on the various pages they are involved with to undermine them and make their experience here less than enjoyable. This is very evident in the record here. They have been at the front of the attack on all of the pages I have been involved with, one of which was sumarrily dismissed by another senior editor as having no validity. User:Ism schism had the nerve to assert that one of the articles was pure gibberish and nonsense despite clear evidence that many other users felt it was clearly written and cogent (nominated for the Wikipedia Philosophy Project no less).

Conveniently, once a page is deleted, it seems that its talk and history are gone as well... thus I can not link to the Wikipedia:Project Philosophy badge the article had earned.

In the end, I don't care if my pages are taken down. The idea that they might need some help and assistance from other users more familiar with Wikipedia protocol than I, is not hard to imagine. However, instead of being constructive, these two have taken it upon themselves to hound and attack without any constructive criticism. They have operated like a tag team duo, which makes me wonder if they are not sockpuppets, or at least friends who find this kind of thing amusing. You can read here in this user's archive of at least 2 recent cases where he has been accused of sockpuppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra/Archive_1#Sockpuppetry_case A number of other edits in his talk page are also burying complaints leveled against him, and he prides himself on being a so-called BOLD editor who doesn't care about communication, but just acts first according to his interests. A person with this many investigations and complaints should not be allowed to continue roaming free and intimidating people... this seems to be a weakness of the Wikipedia model IMHO.

With all the articles people could be editing, the thought that someone would randomly be the spearhead of attacks on all of another users articles is far-fetched... the idea that 2 users could be doing the same independently, is ridiculous. A 3rd member of the push against my articles is also present on more than one call for deletion, so they may have a little clique. There is a pattern of working together between these people in their contribution history, but as someone with real life responsibilities... I can not be bothered to spend the hours it would take collecting and collating the data. At any rate, the people in question are very quick to erase conversations and delete things from their talk pages that put them in a bad light. Suffice it to say, I am not the only person who has taken issue with the way these two play Wikipedia as if it were some kind of competitive video game.

(Personal attack removed) If the removal or fixing of the Water Charity page is truly warranted, another editor can engage the process anew. JahSun (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, here is the complaint filed by JahSun against Cybercobra and IsmSchism. I advised JahSun there and I repeat it here: if he would just spend one-tenth of the time posting links to all this evidence he claims is out there, instead of posting long rambling attacks here and on talk pages and at ANI, he could easily cause this whole deletion controversy to go away. Just SHOW us some of these links, instead of insisting they are there if only WE will look for them. If you can show me several examples of significant coverage in reliable sources - as Wikipedia defines "significant" and "reliable source" - I will change my !vote to "keep" and so will everyone else here. Stop wasting your time and everybody else's by telling us how important you are and how unfairly you think you are being treated. Just show us the evidence we keep asking for, and all will be well. MelanieN (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harassment is a serious issue. My pointing it out is neither long, nor rambling. The history of complaints is an important piece of information. In jurisprudence, the pattern of previous behavior and repeated calls of sockpuppetry are significant. I posted the first 6 links I came across, and one of my attackers consistently claims that websites are not good enough... I don't know how to link to anything other than a website. If you want some more links, how about one of these:

http://52pumps52weeks.wordpress.com/ A Blog set up by the Peace Corps country director of Senegal talking about a 52 well project we are doing with them.

http://www.theaccessproject.com/index.php/from_the_field/story/making_running_water_a_reality_in_rural_health_centers This one mentions the many projects we are doing in Rwanda.

In the Peace Corps Journal Project we are mentioned extensively... having worked with 1,000 PCVs or so over the years. Here is an example of that: http://www.peacecorpsjournals.com/entry/401868-10645-73-http://sharonssenegaladventure.blogspot.com/2012/01/well-improvement-project.html

Or the Burkina Faso resource site: http://www.pcburkina.org/content/appropriate-projects-initiative-water-and-sanitation-project-funding-pcvs

I could go on like this all day, but the issue to me is not the repeated and laughable claims that we are not real or not international or not notable... it is the specious and vicious attacks by the users in question who both have a history of acting in this way. I have read the reliable sources page now, and I think given the nature of the projects we do, such sources as I have provided are the most reliable you could ask for. They not only show that we exist, but they show how much other people in the philanthropic world appreciate what we do. I do not feel that the people who have commented negatively here are in any position to judge us. JahSun (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources, so don't go on all day. These are a waste of your time and ours. Instead of searching at Google, search at Google News for current stories - and Google News "archive" (button on the left) to see old news stories. You can link to a news story just as you can to a blog, and I know you know this because you have done it - with your link in the article to the Washington Times (which unfortunately did not mention Water Charity). If you actually read WP:RS, you should have come to realize that we require PUBLISHED sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or books) which have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Not some peace corps volunteer's diary. MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW nobody has subjected you to "specious and vicious attacks". They are simply pointing out that the articles about your charity, and about you, do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion based on current evidence. MelanieN (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Melanie, please read the Wikipedia:Harassment policy because following a user around and attempting to delete all their articles is a blatant case. Even if they were correct, the policy advises that users not edit or comment on any large number of another user's posts. Secondly, it seems you have not read the Wikipedia:RS policy recently yourself. I will quote from it here. The sources you say are not reliable are actually only called Questionable in the guidelines and there are circumstances where they are considered appropriate and acceptable. Here:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

It seems that I could even post from the many hundreds of articles about our projects from our own website or even the Twitter feeds and Facebook pages of notable experts. Filmmaker Jim Thebaut regularly tweets about us and invites us every year to his Water Forum in Washington DC. WaterWired chief editor Michael Campana also blogs and tweets about us regularly... he is maybe the leading expert on the world water crisis in print.

The idea that a blog to document 52 well project written and set up by the Country Director (highest authority in country) of the United States Peace Corp does not attest to verifiability and notability is an odd idea. Obviously he is an expert in the field. Obviously he thinks the work we do is important.

Forgive me if this exercise in futility seems like a waste of my time. This whole episode has taken hours of my time that would have been better spent doing what I do best... helping people. I don't know what the rest of you do best, but this is not a shining example of it. Save the world from having to see Water Charity and its work on Wikipedia... a real public service.JahSun (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Sources

You say Google News hits are good? Here is one that pops up, Vogue good enough for you? http://www.vogue.com.au/people+parties/events/kate+bosworth+raises+funds+in+the+maldives,14801 or this http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/press-release/maldives-to-welcome-first-ocean-conservation-event-at-six-senses_56715/ There is a lot of press for our Maldives Laamu event because the resort has a press agent, but we have events all the time. Note that at this event for us, Kate Bosworth, James Morrison, Fabien Cousteau, Jane Seymour, Daryl Hannah, and Rami Jaffee (a Foo Fighter & original Wallflower) were there to promote our work. I personally invited Darryl & Rami, who are only a couple of the dozens of celebrities whom I am personally friendly with. I could probably even get guys like Lenny Kravitz, Ben Harper, Jim Carrey and more to come to this site just to vouch for us, but somehow I doubt that would satisfy you lot. You would just claim that it is unverifiable that they are who they claimed to be. I could get one of my friends to tweet about us on a verified account... If Sonny Rollins or Ian Anderson tweeted that we were major, international and notable would that help? JahSun (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue page won't load for me, but I gather Water Charity was one of several beneficiaries of a fundraiser. At least you are finally offering a published source, although this hardly qualifes as "significant coverage" about the organization. Your second link is a press release; press releases are not considered reliable sources because they are not independent journalism. Name dropping a dozen celebrities won't help. Citing tweets won't help. Look, at this discussion you said that Water Charities is "a major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press". Great! Just find us some of those dozens of interviews, or other substantial coverage in the mainstream press (even a mention helps, although it doesn't establish notability by itself), and we can all move on. MelanieN (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Vogue page loads just fine for me. And the second link is not a press release. We do not put out press releases generally, and the policy of WP is that the subject's press releases are not independent. If someone else issues a press release that mentions us and adds to our notability, it seems to avoid this stricture. And here is one of the NDTV features on the event that is up on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI8Wdq7mwAY (there is a link to part 2 of this 20 min feature on this page as well).
You keep telling me what will help and what I should do. You haven't responded to the fact that the actual policies of Wikipedia seem to state different things than you. What, I ask, makes you the authority here. If you want to move on... go right ahead. There is no reason for you... any of you, to keep coming back to all these pages and hounding. Must be nice to boss around and strongarm a CEO, no?

I am done jumping though hoops for you. If the celebrities think we are notable, that holds more water than whether you, MelanieN do. As for the other charities present, we invited them (Fabien Cousteau's charity, and another friend's Blue Marine Foundation)... Six Senses.. as you would know if you read the link earlier is one of our major sponsors, and they do many fundraisers for us. We are the prime recipient of the charitable funds they raise. JahSun (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue article is a grand total of 6-7 sentences in length, and the coverage of Water Charity consists entirely of the sentence "Raising funds for [...] marine charities Water Charity and Plant a Fish, the aim of the event was to highlight and discuss marine conservation issues." For the umpteenth time, I advise JahSun to read the WP:GNG (it's not a long read). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read that through many times... it is you who seem to be ignoring WP:ABOUTSELF stipulations on Questionable sources. Being mentioned in Vogue demonstrates some notability whether you like to admit it or not.JahSun (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's from the Verifiability policy, which is about what content an article can have (e.g. I couldn't edit Earth to claim that it's only 3.14159 million years old without citing a source). Deletion discussions are concerned with Notability, which is whether a topic merits its own article (e.g. some random Pokémon doesn't merit a separate article). WP:ABOUTSELF basically means "if we have an article on an entity, we can typically use published facts from the entity in the article". It doesn't factor into notability though. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try buddy... But the Notability page refers and links back to the Verifiability page for questions of "reliable sources," and in case you haven't been paying attention, the issue being raised with the 10 or more links here always comes back to RS. JahSun (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT

I ask that you familiarize yourself with WP:NONPROFIT as it seems you and others here are unfamiliar for what the criteria are for a non-profit like Water Charity and continue to speak as if this was an article on a typical encyclopedic fact. We are only held to 2 criteria, both of which have been amply proven. The wikipolicy goes on to say that our major achievements can be used to speak to our notability, in which case, the hundreds of projects up on our various websites speak volumes as to our notability... as a non-profit. The sheer number of our projects and the scope of our impact around the world is a valid point of argument according to WP:NONPROFIT. If you are going to be a policy stickler... at least know your policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem delusional. Talking in the 'we' about Wikipedia? "And all in all, it must be remembered that this is our field and our ball and our rules." You've been playing in this public park so long you think it is your backyard? Even the founders of this website couldn't say what you are saying. Wikipedia is just as much my field and my ball as it is yours. JahSun (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that blogs are not considered RS for notability, with certain rare exceptions. Nor are forums, press releases (including PRWire etc), and wikis (including Wikipedia). Peridon (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Nonprofits may be one of those "rare" exceptions. At any rate, you are not the master of all knowledge and correctness here. Everyone can read the policy and decide for themselves what it means. Maybe you have a bit too much of yourself invested here... I recommend you get a few hobbies outside the confines of this odd little world. Your field, your ball, and your rules? Kind of sad. JahSun (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NONPROFIT (2) is not the same as WP:GNG. Water Charity meets (2) because information about the charity can be verified by multiple, third party reliable resources. As someone else has already pointed out, it can also be independently verified they are a registered charity based in CA. There are a couple of news articles which verify they are internationally active (particularly in the Maldives) in charity work. Therefore it quite clearly does meet the second requirement. If (2) was the same as WP:GNG (which it isn't) there would be no need for point (1), or for that matter, WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not pass WP:NONPROFIT. For this article to pass NONPROFIT, it must also past part 2 which states, Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. As this second requirement is not met, the article should be deleted. Please see MelanieN's commet below for more explanation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you have simply repeated what you said above doesn't exactly help or move things forward. Are you saying the additional news/magazine articles are not WP:IRS? Sionk (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Blueboar and WhatamIdoing's comments below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is verification that is required to pass WP:NONPROFIT. You seem to be agreeing we have verification. Sionk (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously arguing that the only things required for a nonprofit to have an article here are a 501.c.3 designation (for verification) and some kind of national or international connection? If so, then my 14-member Kiwanis Club (and every other 501.c.3 charity, of which there are millions) deserves a Wikipedia article.
WP:NONPROFIT requires that "information about the organization and its activities" be verified by "multiple third-party independent reliable sources" - a standard which is similar to the notability requirement for WP:GNG. The only two real references provided for this organization - a passing mention in Vogue Australia and a paragraph at National Geographic's Newswatch - do not come close to that standard. JahSun keeps insisting that the organization has been covered by multiple articles in the mainstream press, but he (and we) were unable to come up with a single example, and without them this charity does not qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So someone PLEEEZ explain, what is the difference between WP:NONPROFIT and WP:GNG? If there is no difference then there is no need for WP:NONPROFIT. There is clearly a difference. We are not looking for in-depth news coverage, we are simply looking for verification. JahSun had no tact or manners but I can understand their frustration. Sionk (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both call for 'multiple' sources, with the caveat "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." in GNG at least. We are looking for at least some in depth coverage. We do know it (the charity) exists (unlike the 'multinational' I referred to either here or one of the other JahSun linked articles). Existence is not the same as notability. And without notability as a criterion, we'd be seeing articles for such as the Downby-in-the-Swamp Fish Protection Society's charity stall at Sunquern Thursday Market. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We clearly have a difference of opinion. You think the article has to pass WP:GNG and I think it only has to pass WP:NONPROFIT. I don't think this disagreement is going to be resolved here. Consensus will have its way, I expect. Sionk (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a request for clarification of the requirements for nonprofits here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Sionk (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good decision. Ism schism (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors (the people here, not the people writing the article) get to decide which set of criteria are most appropriate for any given article. Additionally, all articles must pass WP:WHYN, which is the list of minimum sourcing requirements that are absolutely necessary if the article is going to pass the major policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. An article based entirely on the charity's own website (or on their website and a passing mention elsewhere), for example, cannot meet the requirements of the neutrality policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure - this question has prompted me to clarify the language at WP:NONPROFIT... NONPROFIT is a section of the larger WP:ORG... which states in it's lede: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. This notability standard applies to all organizations and companies... including non-profit organizations. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. Hopefully it will help avoid further confusion. Begoon talk 09:23, 14 February 2012 (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.
More