Contents

Talk:WateReuse

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it focuses on an organization that focuses on solving the issues many people are facing today, the drought. WateReuse needs to be recognized for their efforts in sustainability of water by researching ways to reuse and desalinate water. Especially in times like this, California, amongst all places, need a new solution on how to solve the water crisis. Advocating organizations like WateReuse will give the public more information on what can be done to save these residents.-Ado9 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs to be deleted. The topic is not meeting WP:N. EMsmile (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot find independent, in-depth, coverage of this trade organization, I see it mentioned thousands of times by many media, including The New York Times. I found this article helpful in telling me what "WateReuse" means. Comfr (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think that would be a sufficient reason to keep this article. I still think it should be deleted. If someone wants to know about WateReuse they can just use Google anyhow. I had never heard of them before and I work on water reuse topics in my day job. It might be a very local thing for just the US only. More important would be to get the article on water reuse up to scratch. Take a look at the talk page there were we are currently discussing renaming reclaimed watertowater reuse. EMsmile (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel quite frustrated. I see "WateReuse" everywhere, including mention in at least 10 Wikipedia articles, but I cannot find in-depth coverage anywhere. In desperation, I looked at state registration documents and found contradictions with the article. For example, the foundation no longer exists. I added that information to the article.

Thanks for telling me about renaming Reclaimed water to Water reuse. I am considering merging WateReuse into that article and converting WateReuse into a redirect. That way redlinks will not start appearing.

Thanks for alerting us to the problem. Comfr (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I suggest you copy the text of WateReuse into your sandbox to have it safe in case the article gets deleted soon. Adding a much condensed version of the WateReuse content to water reuse might work but it needs to be very much condensed. There are loads and loads of organisations, networks, associations etc who work on water reuse so it wouldn't feel right to give too much space to this particular association in the water reuse article. It would only once again reinforce the feeling that many Wikipedia articles are too U.S. centric... EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the links from other articles to this one are minimal. Mostly just from the reference list (I have deleted two sentences which I felt were not properly sourced or not necessary to mention authors in line. Feels like someone was trying to "push" WateReuse within Wikipedia...). EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was the editor who added the section about template assisted crystallization. I used the paper published by the California Water Resources Control Board, which seemed like a reliable source, and it mentioned WateReuse Research Foundation, which has since merged into the WateReuse Research Association. I appreciate your concern about WateReuse being pushed into Wikipedia, but that was not my intention.

Unfortunately, the more I attempt to verify information in the WateReuse Wikipedia article, or the WateReuse website, the more I fail. I feel embarrassed about the condition of this article. WateReuse has apparently funded a lot of peer reviewed research, so I think Wikipedia should tell what it is. I have added what I have been able to verify about WateReuse to another article. I will see what I can learn about other reuse organizations. Thanks for pointing out these problems. Comfr (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed the WP:PROD tag, User:Comfr. Wasn't that done a bit prematurely? I think it would have been better to let the deletion proposal run its course and see what others think. If not, then let's now replace the content with a redirect, since you have added content from this article to water reuse now. EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing the merge. Comfr (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]