Talk:Rural Water Supply Network

Resubmitted draft 1 July 2024 and professional connection declaration

I've just resubmitted the draft, after having spent some hours improving it. I have added many independent sources to the article to show the notability of this network. Disclosure: I have a professional connection with RWSN through a consultancy project I have with Skat Foundation. This is also explained on my user page. Based on my long experience with Wikipedia processes, I think I have been able to rework this draft in a neutral and objective way, adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines. The result is a new article about RWSN that fits the guidelines and that is a good addition to Wikipedia articles. The network is notable as can be seen from its long history and its deep connections and collaborations with notable organisations like World Bank, UN Water, WHO, SDC etc. EMsmile (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Review (July 2024)

Copied from another talk page: Comments by User:Endrabcwizart: "I think this may be relevant according to their website detail, but we need secondary sources. We cannot use their website content as the reference. I believe some corrections should be made before AFC submission.

My Opinion for improvement: Infobox with basic information

Sections: Introduction, About, History, Work, Annual Report, Where they work

All these suggestions depend on secondary sources like journals, news media, and others (for more info: WP:RELIABLE). If I find some relevant sources, I will definitely contribute. At this time, this article may not be ready for mainspace and needs more improvement. Thanks." EMsmile (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Endrabcwizart thanks for your comments. However, I think the article already has plenty of independent sources that substantiate the fact that this network is indeed WP:notable. However, I see now that the refs are confusing: many of them are hosted in the library of RWSN but they are not publications by RWSN. This might have been misleading. I'll fix that up quickly now and then it's easier to see which of the refs are independent and which are from RWSN.

With regards to those sections that you mentioned, I would say this is already there. It is not common to have an "introduction" section for an organisation. Their history, the work they do and where is explained in the article. The annual report is used as a reference and does not need its own section heading.

I can do up an infobox, that's no problem. Again though, I don't think this is mandatory. I've seen many other Wikipedia articles about organisations without infoboxes. But I guess it's easy to do. EMsmile (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, so I have added the infobox that you had suggested. I've also re-arranged the content so that it's easier to see where they work (basically everywhere where rural people need access to drinking water). I've also improved the refs so that it's clearer which refs are by RWSN themselves and which are by others (but sometimes hosted in the RWSN library).

With the current numbering system, these refs are from others, not from RWSN, and do meet the criteria for WP:RELIABLE: Numbers 1, 2, 5, 10-20, 22-24, 30-35, 39-50. This is a lot and certainly far more than what the original draft had that was rejected two years ago. I've searched far and wide but those were the key publications that I found. I think this number and the organisations behind those publications (like Worldbank, Unicef etc) is actually rather impressive. EMsmile (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:CFA thanks for taking the time to review this article and I am sad to hear that you have rejected the draft. You said there was promotional content. I've now removed the sentence that you flagged as promotional in the lead. I've read through the entire article again but found no other statements that could be viewed as promotional. Please indicate to me where else you see promotional statements.

With regards to the references used, like I wrote above on 23 July 2024 I would argue that the article contains many reliable references from outside sources (I've listed their numbers above but you have to subtract one as I removed one. So it's now number Numbers 1, 4, 9-19, 21-23, 29-34, 38-49.) Many of them are from big organiations like Worldbank, SDC and so forth. I mean, I don't know what kind of publications you expect to write about a network that is active for rural water supply in developing countries. It's not like you could expect books and peer-reviewed articles about such a network. Nevertheless I believe it's notable and fits the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I have seen loads of Wikipedia articles about organisations with far fewer publications. Just for comparison, see World Toilet Organization, Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, Sanitation and Water for All which have very few external publications and yet exist happily as Wikipedia articles.

What's wrong with the publications I used for the article so far? I think they meet the criteria. EMsmile (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I've done some shortening and condensing. Maybe this helps to reduce the "promotional tone". Maybe I should also remove or condense the bullet point list about the conferences. EMsmile (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile,

A lot of the article in general still reads like an advertisement trying to promote the organization. For example, "It has over 13,000 members in 168 countries (as of 2021) from diverse sectors, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), research institutions, and private companies. An independent evaluation of RWSN in 2017 found that: "the RWSN has been described to be the prime network that supports scale up of rural water supply for practitioners"." in the lead is solely there to promote the organization. I suggest reading WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:NPOV before resubmitting.

It doesn't look like the article meets the notability guidelines for organizations at the moment:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I don't see any independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage at the moment. The World Bank and SDC are both primary sources, and while they could help with verifying information, they do not help with establishing notability. For an organization like this, the best option to look for is generally news articles by reliable sources that are wholly about the organization. A good number to look for is 3 in-depth reliable, independent sources.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very good argument here. If you believe those other articles you listed do not meet the notability guidelines, you can always nominate them for deletion yourself.

Another issue right now is that way too much of the article is sourced to the organization's website. Primary sources are ok for a few small, short, uncontroversial claims throughout the article — probably no more than 3. Articles should be based on what secondary sources say about the subject, not your own reading of their website. That is original research and is especially not helpful here. If no secondary sources mention what you want to include, it should not be included.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 15:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed some more of the content that was probably overly detailed and could be regarded as "promotional" and that had been sourced to the RWSN website. Of all the references used, only 5 are now either the RWSN website or their annual report or strategy document. However, there simply are no books or news articles that cover RWSN in depth but I think based on its impacts for people in developing countries, and based on its "endorsements" by larger organisations it should be regarded as notable (so I don't agree with the guidelines, but so be it). Based on WP:FAILN I might look for another article where I can merge some of the content into.

With regards to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am not planning to nominate any article for deletion, as they have been living happily on Wikipedia for many years. But I am interested in your opinion: if thosse examples were AfC articles and you had to decide to pass or fail them, what would you do?: World Toilet Organization, Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, Sanitation and Water for All. Just so that I know for future reference. EMsmile (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your question:

• World Toilet Organization: I would decline it, because the references in the article do not show notability (that is the standard policy for AfC). I would not, however, nominate it for deletion if it was already in mainspace, because I can see lots of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (ex: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.) They just haven't been added to the article.
• Sustainable Sanitation Alliance: I would decline it. I would also nominate it for deletion in mainspace because I cannot see any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.
• Sanitation and Water for All: Same situation as Sustainable Sanitation Alliance.

I obviously don't care enough to nominate the last two for deletion, but they probably wouldn't survive an AfD. C F A 💬 02:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for those inputs. I wonder if the guidelines have been made stricter in recent years because when I look around for Wikipedia articles on organisations and companies, I see loads and loads that don't meet the criteria of having in-depth coverage about them in secondary sources (books and newspaper articles; both of which - ironically - may well be behind paywalls, so not easy to access for Wikipedia editors or for readers). So perhaps the community decided at some point they want fewer of those articles about organisations and hence made it more restrictive. Thanks again for your time. EMsmile (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes from NPP review

Looks good, with expanded references. Thanks for your work!

North8000 (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)