Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild rivers

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 per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild rivers

I came across this page in a moment of boredom by clicking Random Article. The term "wild rivers" strikes me as simply jargon that is in need of a definition rather than a complex concept in need of an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it should be deleted and taken to wiktionary. I may be wrong, but I think it sould at least be discussed here. William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Government in Queensland Australia consider it notable enough to make an Act about it. Also, check out the 'Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968' in US. And Google Scholar reveals it is certainly a term of some significance. Vegetationlife (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But needs better documentation that it is a term of art. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I agree with Mangoe. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Mangoe said above. Think outside the box 11:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added sources and rewritten some of it. Think outside the box 11:54, 4 February 2008 (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.