Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animas-La Plata Water Project

: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. MBisanz talk 00:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[Animas-La Plata Water Project]]=

:{{la|Animas-La Plata Water Project}} ([{{fullurl:Animas-La Plata Water Project|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animas-La Plata Water Project}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Blatant opinion piece. Not sure this is notable? No sources. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:Keep I think it is notable, as there are a few news written about it: [http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-us-federal-government/6267123-1.html] [http://facethestate.com/articles/udalls-wife-harbored-animus-animas-la-plata-project]. However it's pure WP:OR at the moment, so I think most if not all of the text can be deleted and replaced with a short stub based on the two previous links. Laurent (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:Comment Could it be merged in Animas? Laurent (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Quick gsearch shows it's notable. I was bold and took a chainsaw to the thing to get rid of the POV problems.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:*Facepalm! I should have looked at the history first. Looks like the article was hijacked in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animas-La_Plata_Water_Project&diff=278554528&oldid=276961104 this edit]. If anyone prefers the March 13 version to mine, feel free to go back to that one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

::The pre-hijacked version seems to be okay (could do with more sources, but there's nothing that makes it qualify for deletion). I suggest we go back to that revision. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Revert and Keep: Revert to the March the 13th version, then keep it as it seems to be notable, passing WP:GNG as it has been subject of secondary sources. Although, it could use a little bit of love and care even after, if, a revert is preformed. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.