Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Waterfowl Foundation

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. Overall consensus is Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Waterfowl Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real claim to notability and only one primary source.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm seeing a bit of press coverage: eg [1], [2], but I'm not seeing much to suggest it is really notable. JMWt (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biased keep: I've been on Wikipedia a long time, but always steered clear of AfD. Today I decided to look into nominating Indeterminacy in concurrent computation for deletion (the original contributor Carl Hewitt was banned from Wikipedia for life around 2009; as a working computer scientist, I find this article too hairy to salvage, but I've decided I'm not going to pony up for the AfD process having looked at it).

When I came here I was more than mildly shocked to see Delta Waterfowl up for deletion. My wife once worked there (Manitoba) long ago (predator management phase). My impression is that within the wetland conservation community, Delta Waterfowl is far from non-notable. Think of it this way. A not-for-profit can spend its donations on self-promotion (many sources, few accomplishments) or it can go the other direction (fewer sources, more accomplishments). Are we here to punish them for spending less on their publicity engine than they otherwise might have? Disease, meet master.

Delta Waterfowl: Growing ducks, speaking up, gaining members (2004)

Delta Waterfowl's research data, in many cases, has been the cornerstone of duck and geese understanding. Such research was the impetus for establishing a spring breeding survey. Most of the basic understanding about prairie breeding ecology and even winter ecology has been a result of Delta Waterfowl research.
...
"When you look at administrative and overhead, Delta Waterfowl is about as skinny as you'll find," says Devney.

Both of those statements accord with my personal perspective, one step removed, for what it's worth. On the flip side, the organization is extremely inbred, with membership consisting almost exclusively of duck hunters. — MaxEnt 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: just for the record, the fabulous little marbled polecat article (obscure species, referenced to the hilt) came out of my wife's relationship with a scientist who once worked there, from long ago when I encouraged her to take a stab at this new thing. He was typical of many interns who once went through that program. — MaxEnt 21:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. HighBeam and GNews searches turn up substantial coverage including articles in The Commercial Appeal ("Delta Waterfowl and Ducks Unlimited are the two most significant waterfowl conservation groups in the country.") [3], The Star Tribune [4][5], Winnipeg Free Press [6], Daily Herald [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and WP:CLUB. Yep, what's good is that we're not seeing coverage from just one particular state or province and of course the statement made by The Commercial Appeal about this being on par with Ducks Unlimited helps, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2016 (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.