Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA trailer (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Nom withdrawn, see final comment below. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FEMA trailer
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has no real cited sources and is a POV mess stuck in 2006 Gront (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sceptre (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Sourcing is out there. Article can be improved but the subject certainly deserves its own article.Notmyrealname (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: Is about a topic well-recognized by society and has plenty of references. Many more can likely be found. Hellno2 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Huh? -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Famous and notable. Problems with parts of the article are better delt with with a scalpel than a chain-saw. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but show me what part of the current article is not original research or total crap? Yes, there should be an article about FEMA Trailers, but not this article. Maybe taking everything out but the introduction (or a merge) would be a good start, but c'mon, did you guys read the article? Gront (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with a notable article, fix it. SashaNein (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable subject with outside references. Obviously could be improved but this is an editing issue best dealt with on the Talk page. --Dhartung | Talk 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close "Yes, there should be an article about FEMA Trailers, but not this article."....and thus the nominator has completely invalidated his deletion rationale. The subject is notable and should be improved. Deleting an article to solve problems that aren't resolved by deletion is abstract to say the least. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The subject matter has been covered thoroughly from countless reliable sources. If the article is in need of clean up, fix it. AFD is not cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – multiple reliable sources are cited, meeting the verifiability and no original research core policies, and also meeting the notability guideline. Part of it may be total crap, but that is a reason to improve it&mdash;not delete it. Cheers, EJF (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Gront (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2008 (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.