Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster City

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. Nandesuka (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disaster City

Disaster City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Advertising with little redeeming value. It has no assertion of notability, and was obviously written by the company that owns the site, the Texas Engineering Extension Service (the creator was User:Teexreviewer). -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — The article currently is poor, but I have found significant reliable secondary sources from The International Herald Tribune and Officer.com. This article can be improved very significantly I believe. EJF (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment A cooperative extension service is an arm of a state university system coordinated by the United States Department of Agriculture. This is probably intended to be a money-making facility for what is basically a non-profit agency. --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Perhaps this structure is notable, but whole sections of the article are directly lifted off other websites, [1] and [2] for example, causing big time copyvio issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The copyright violation material has been removed and replaced. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. Since you have made a convincing point that the subject is notable (not perhaps notable), I will call this a keep now that it is valid stub page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and re-write per EJF. It is the in-depth subject of secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. It should be reduced to a non-advert stub and grow from there. --Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note:I've flagged the article for rescue — the facility clearly is notable, but it's a race against the clock before it's deleted. It was speedy-tagged at 08:48, 17 March 2008. EJF (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, (or at least merge into Texas Engineering Extension Service). Appears to be notable based on the sources. --Pixelface (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep - subject has received non-trivial coverage in a highly reliable source (IHT) and lesser coverage elsewhere. скоморохъ 10:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: Added more refs, not like it matters with all the keeps. -Jahnx (talk) 08:11, 21 March 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.