Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program

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. Discounting the votes without arguments, there does not appear to be consensus to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program[edit]

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

I see no indication of notability. No significant coverage in independent sources found via Google News, Books or Scholar. All sources that aren't obviously primary sources are authored or co-authored by the same person (and some of the co-authors seem affiliated with the program); that's not enough for an encyclopedia article. Huon (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs some work to address NPOV and jargon, but the project seems notable in that it has received regional coverage in newspapers including the Albuquerque Journal, Farmington Daily Times, Denver Post, and Colorado Springs Gazette (some of these suggest need for a section on objections/concerns). In addition to Gosnell's work cited in the article, Aton and McPherson's book River Flowing From The Sunrise appears to be an independent source that describes aspects of the project. The topic also seems contextually relevant to other articles, such as the San Juan River, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, Animas-La Plata Water Project, Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, etc. — Quercusechinus (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rhadow (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --do ncr am 04:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find in gnews any of the newspapers cited above. In the absence of actual sources it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a straight Google search returns many hits in Federal Government documentation, which shows it is possible to write a neutral article on this topic. Indeed, most of the article is a copypaste of this Fish and Wildlife Service report. (I assume that as Federal Govt documentation it is is PD, otherwise I would have deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 1 August 2017 (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.