Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isinglass River Management Plan
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Merge to Isinglass River. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isinglass River Management Plan
- Isinglass River Management Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not entirely sure on how to proceed here. I don't think there is sufficient notability to sustain this as an independent article, but I do think that a mention, to whatever degree, would be appropriate in the article Isinglass River, so probably WP:MERGE to that article would be most appropriate. But as the reference given is not readily accessible and there does not seem to be a whole lot on this on Google, delete might be more appropriate. Right now I am not entirely committed to either option. Safiel (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a selected amount to Isinglass River. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with some significant pruning. The river management plan makes sense as part of the Isinglass River article, but I don't se that a stndalone article is viable. The report is available online so sourcing for this is possible for any editor doing the merge. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As nominator and having read the link to the report posted by the previous commenter, WP:MERGE seems fairly obvious now. Safiel (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2012 (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.