Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery


 * 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, clear consensus established. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fish hatchery. No reliable sources provided in article. Article strongly fails Notability. If it were a private hatchery instead of federal, I'd speedy delete as a non-notable company, but I'll grant that claiming to be a national hatchery is just enough of a claim to spare it speedy deletion and send it to AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know that this isn't in the guidelines, but it would seem like a shame to me to delete something whose home website has a .gov extension.  There is little information provided in this article, but I'll do a little research to see if I can add to it.  --דניאל - Danielrocks123 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just a hatchery. There's nothing notable about it, and no sources. List of National Fish Hatcheries in the United States documents that it exists, and that's about all we really need to know.  Sxeptomaniac 16:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as it stands now, it's just a directory entry.  We're really not losing much to delete and start over at a later date.  Corpx 16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have just expanded this article to include more information about the fish that the hatchery cares for and its facilities. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the changes there, plus there's some 3rd party sourcing here Corpx 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Corpx. bfigura (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Above. Nen  yedi  • (Deeds•Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Famous, and now adequaely sourced. DGG (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is expanded, but there are still no independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources do exist, as per my google news link earlier, but I do not feel strongly enough about this topic to pay to read & cite those articles Corpx 20:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, as much as Wikipedia bills itself as the "free encyclopedia," I don't think an editor should have to pay to keep an article around. I'll concede that sources exist, and therefore it is notable, even without quoting the little preview shreds in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is fine now. ¿SFGi Д nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Technically, I can't withdraw my nomination, since Sxeptomaniac still has an open !vote of delete. However, WP:SNOW tells me that this process is going to end with a keep result, so nothing's gained by leaving it open. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2007 (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.