Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense Support of Civil authorities


 * 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 and cleanup. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Defense Support of Civil authorities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod contested, thus listed here - Unencylopedic opinion piece on the merits of civil defence authorities Passportguy (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is pretty horribly formatted and has serious issues, but I'm not sure about deletion. Which part of WP:NOT would you invoke?  It doesn't seem to be opinion.   Being poorly written isn't really a reason for deletion. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment Obvious essay, but the topic might indeed be worthy of an article. Perhaps some wikification & inline citations could assist verification.  The concern here is that this is all original research, especially given that it looks like a cut & paste of someone's term paper.  If no improvement towards overcoming WP:OR concerns, count this as a weak delete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A small amount of information on DSCA might be worth mentioning on the United States Northern Command page. Fences and windows (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse Fences and windows Some material might be well suited to the NORTHCOM page. Buckshot06(prof) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. The current content is too detailed to be encyclopedic, and the core concepts and references would help improve existing articles that cover the same topic: either Military operations other than war (U.S.-centric article) and/or Military aid to the civil power (more international).  Extra redirects might be needed to cover more of the combinations I found on Google:  Military/Defense Support/Aid/Assistance/Operations To/For Civil Authorities/Community/Power.  - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) - see updated !vote/comment below - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I have gone through and condensed the article to its key points and improved the tone. The article still needs work, but I'd ask that it be given a second look.  DSCA is a key component of a number of large-scale disasters.  It garnered the most attention during Hurricaine Katrina.  As it continues to be used, it may be referenced in articles about future disasters.  I think it is important to have an article that explains this resource.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs more explicit detailed sourcing, and expansion. There should be some discussion  of specific incidents--or at least links.DGG (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep after improvements by SharkxFanSJ [well done!], but provide specific inline citations per DGG's !vote, and merge the "History" section into Military aid to the civil power. Use the MACP article for the general historical/constitutional/international picture vs. the DSCA article to detail current arrangements in the U.S. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (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.