Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soft water path

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 no consensus. Since a lot of the debate depended on the defluffing and it has just recently occurred, it may be better to renom rather than relist. Wizardman 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft water path

Article is an essay of sorts, or failing that, some sort of advertisement. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK of sorts for Peter Gleick; it contains a great deal of WP:OR. The larger issue is that there's nothing here that seems encyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as original research. Vquex (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is for a delete; the template was deleted on Aug 1. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and defluff. The article isn't written as clearly as it could be, so at first reading comes off as puffery for Gleick, but it looks like there is actually something here to write about. These all seem to be unrelated and reasonably respectable, if environmentalist, sources: IISD Water Sustainability Project Alternatives Progressive Policy Institute Friends of the Earth University of Waterloo Gleick's own work on the subject is published in some pretty heavy-duty journals. Science and Nature. We've got articles on most of these bodies, they range from the at least notable to the highly respected, and I don't think they would serve to disseminate press releases. Unfortunately, I don't know a body of water from a hole in the ground (...err...phrasing...), so I'm not volnteering to rewrite this, but it does seem a thoroughly encyclopedic topic. --GRuban (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but only if cleaned up substantially. It reads like some promotional page on a website. Keep the information, trim the fat, and meh, it's good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinnisawest (talk • contribs) 01:14, August 12, 2008
Delete unless it is thoroughly rewritten, because it reads like a pamphlet. Also, some fragments are taken straight from this site: http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/soft_path/index.htm Stijndon (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect-- as others have noted above, this is an essay based on a neologism from a single scientist's work (Peter Gleick), rather than an encyclopedic article on a well-established subject. There's nothing inherently wrong with such new topics, but they should be ones that are widely researched/discussed. Redirect the topic to the author Gleick's article, where a short summary is all that's needed. --HidariMigi (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up the article slightly. I have no strong opinion on whether it should be deleted or not, but could not tolerate the extreme puffery anymore. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:38, 13 August 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.