Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire department rehab

:{{la|Fire department rehab}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fire_department_rehab Stats])

:({{Find sources|Fire department rehab}})

Unencyclopedic article containing original research, tagged for four years now. That there would be health services available to firefighters really goes without saying. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The nomination starts badly with WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and gets worse. The topic is notable, being documented at length in works such as [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gf-l-CFDe5UC Emergency Incident Rehabilitation] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kp9VZIEnIO8C&pg=PA651 Fundamentals of Fire Fighter Skills]. And it goes without saying ... Warden (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. It mentions Fire Department Rehab Units in it. This is a real thing. Dream Focus 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete While it might be real, this article reeks of WP:ORIGINAL and a large part of the article is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Not to mention the lack of sources. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)(see below)

:* And why can't these issues be addressed by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE? Warden (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::* But, where do you draw the line? The article has sat in this state for 4 years. I'm all for WP:PRESERVE but you have to draw the line somewhere. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

:::*No one has ever made a single post on the talk page. If someone has a problem with the article, they could've just discussed it there, and done normal editing practices. Deletion should be a last resort, not the first thing done. There is nothing gained by destroying this article. Dream Focus 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

::::* This is true...but the article DID have original research and unreferenced tags since 2009. While the external links section might contain sources, the article would do well with inline citations and removal of the Textbook-y feel of the Overview Section. I see no citation or mention of what that list is, where it came from and what it's supposed to mean (trying to put myself in the shoes of an average encyclopedia reader). Actually, after doing research, most of this section is a copypaste of http://www.fairfieldsc.com/_fileUploads/file/SOG-021%20-%20%20REHAB%20on%20Fire%20Scene.pdf. So, I don't believe that deletion is the first thing done, the chance to improve the article has been there for 4 years, as long as those tags were up (besides the copypaste issue just discovered). ^Jguy_Talk^Done 14:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::*That article came out after that information was in the Wikipedia article. It says [ISSUE DATE 11/29/10] and if we check an edit months before then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fire_department_rehab&oldid=373472030] we find that information was already there. Many places copy things from Wikipedia. Dream Focus 14:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

::::::* Missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. But still...what to do with an article that has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for 4 years? Tons of other articles have met the chopping block for the very same reason. The article has tons of potential but still poses problems when it comes to WP:REF, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I agree that we don't gain anything by hosing an article with tons of potential, but this article sat with those tags for 4 years..surely some cleanup should have been done by then? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::::*WP:NOTPERFECT. Better to have an article with some problems, than no article at all. References are there if you sincerely doubt the information presented. You can see in the further reading and external link section where to find information at. Grabbing one of those links and putting it as a reference somewhere, wouldn't be fast and easy, but I don't see any point to bother with it. And I don't see this as original research. No personal opinions or conclusions are given. And it doesn't look like a textbook either, it just listing information about the subject. Not Manual might apply. Just need to be rewritten so instead of saying things like instructions, list what is suggested by professionals. Dream Focus 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep : Topic is notable and deletion is not cleanup. Problems with content? Fix it, don't destroy it. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 16:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
• Changing opinion to Keep per discussion above. If I find time I will try to improve this article and have added it to my watchlist. :) Thanks. Jguy _Talk^Done 01:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Weak keep mostly because deletion is not cleanup. The nominator said: That there would be health services available to firefighters really goes without saying. But if one reads the introduction to the USFA Emergency Incident Rehab Manual, FA-114 one sees that that was not so obvious. That manual and the FireRehab.com site provide verifiability. I would urge the nominator to give up this Afd, and after it is over, to ruthlessly remove the original research from the article, with appropriate comments on the talk page towards improving the article within Wikipedia guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2013 (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.