Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NOS Marine Forensics Program

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by King of Hearts (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 2 May 2014 (Relisting debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
NOS Marine Forensics Program (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)

Doubtful notability. POV article created by an editor blocked for POV editing John from Idegon (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the "references" cited do not appear to even mention the subject of the article; they only appear to be tangentially related. No !vote yet, but this might actually be a WP:COATRACK on the hunting of marine species. --Kinu t/c 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixable This is a copy of the program site, which is Public Domain as a US government site. But it still was written in the promotional manner of any web site for any program or organization. I think it can be rewritten, and the program is sufficiently notable for the purpose. As its resultsare used in enforcement, there should be sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-someone can fix this easily as said above, nothing wrong with having this page though. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of 00:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]