Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Waterfowl Association

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

California Waterfowl Association[edit]

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

No notability claimed. No sources listed at all. Hama Dryad (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few trivial mentions in local press, I could not find reliable sources to substantiate this group's notability. If another editor can identify reliable, secondary sources that prove this organization is notable, then I am willing to change my vote. In any event, readers should at least take a look at the profile picture from the Chico, California chapter's Facebook page: "America & Ducks -- Nothing Better" (the text appears with a picture of a duck flying proudly in front of an American Flag) ... because there's nothing more American than a bunch of ducks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're mentioned in a number of books as being among the major players in the conservation of wetlands in California (see here, for example), and appear to have commissioned/produced reports which are widely used to determine usage/management of the state's wetlands. According to this book, they've leveraged $57 million for work done on more than 65,000 acres. That sounds far from trivial! MeegsC (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MeegsC, have you found any books are articles where the California Waterfowl Association is the subject of the book or article? All I could find was this article from the Daily Republic about a CWA youth program, this two-sentence mention on ducks.org, this press release from the Napa Valley Register, this press release on a CDFW blog, and this summary of the CWA's history, the text of which was copied and pasted from the CWA's website. The links you provide above only consist of (1) a list of google search results and (2) a brief quotation from a member of the CWA (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). However, none of these sources substantiate notability.

WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis mine). Significant coverage is defined as coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail" (emphasis mine). Likewise, WP:NORG also requires "significant coverage in secondary sources" and that "[t]rivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these sources discuss the organization in any depth or detail. I have seen no secondary sources that provide a detailed account of the organization's history, their significance, or their impact (see also WP:TRIVIALMENTION and WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE). I am certainly willing to change my vote, but I would need to see a few articles or books where the California Waterfowl Association is subject. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy instead as this is questionably solid but can conceivably become a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for balance, some mention of the local anti-hunting lobby should be included. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The only editor in favor of keeping this article has failed to identify any sources that directly discuss this organization, its history, or its significance. Per WP:CLOSEAFD, the closing admin should weigh this against other relevant policy-based arguments for deletion listed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 15 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.