Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission

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. ✗plicit 05:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources for verification. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think with enough digging that sources could be coughed up. I have three sources ([1][2][3]) but they might be WP:PRIMARY or may not do enough coverage of the topic at hand. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is kept, I might work on improving this article. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Narwhal reference is excellent! I can't see the text of the Seattle Times one. See also this article in BC Studies. It's hard to imagine that a binational commission with jurisdiction on the environment wouldn't be notable. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the arguments above. Sources are present which can be incorporated into the article. Though they barely take it past GNG, they can be used for expansion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2024 (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.