Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Water International

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 per WP:HEY effort from User:Blathnaid. GlassCobra 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Living Water International

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Living Water International. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does it fail per nom, it has nothing to do with the subject - it's primarily about water sanitation. Two questions, though:
- Does Living Water come from the River of Life?
- Are WP:SPA accounts those used to create articles about water and water-based therapy?

Ψν^Psi_nu 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't doubt Hu12's SPA concerns, and at the moment the article reads like a press release/newspaper article, but this NPO appears to be notable. It has received finding from the US government's OPIC agency [1] and the Google News hits show that it operates in a number of African countries including Kenya [2]: "President Kibaki thanked Living water international for being instrumental in providing water to the arid regions in the country, noting that the NGO had so far drilled 300 boreholes across the country." I'll try to improve the article before this AfD closes. Bláthnaid 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a quick rewrite, with new sources. Bláthnaid 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable NPO. Nice cleanup work, Blathnaid! Zagalejo^^^ 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Blathnaid. Now has sufficient ref to RS to verify notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Blathnaid's rewrites, notability is now asserted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks legit. all promo/spamishness has been edited out --T-rex 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No violations seen at this time — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does need to be sourced better, but is a verifiably notable agency with several news article hits. Sidatio (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (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.