Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEMA Trailer

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 wasno consensus. --Core des at 00:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA Trailer[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Neologism, original research, merge relevant bits with articles about FEMA and the two hurricanes Ponch's Disco 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting. At 19:00, I converted the article "FEMA Trailer" to "current-event" status, after rewriting and adding 6 sources for facts. Upon close examination, I found the article contained unsourced general information (not "original research" to FEMA), including new events up to last month. Now it is a totally different current-event article, and never was a neologism since FEMA uses the term: "FEMA Trailer Hotline" and such. -Wikid77 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not solve the original underlying problem. Ponch's Disco 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TV Newser Tipline 04:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard the phrase, but... it's a trailer, owned by FEMA. It's self-explanatory. --Brianyoumans 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, I thnk this will be deleted, but it was a big part of alot of people's lives. It was a symbol of what a lot of people deemed shoddiness of the Fema program and noncommitment on the part of the federal government. Some of this appears to be original research, but I think a livelier debate should take place on the merits of such an article other than "Delete per nom". --MonkBirdDuke 06:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points, but which belong in the FEMA article and articles about the two hurricanes. Ponch's Disco 08:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important article and needs to be kept. It has been nominated by those do not understand the concept of wiki. Belly Flop Patrol 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trolling isn't tolerated. – Ch acor 10:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indef blocked sock -Splash - tk 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is a complete joke by someone who just understand the concept of wiki I and don't particularly care for the opinions of the nominator. Tecmobowl 09:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
- This comment has been struck. This was an IP faking the identity of Tecmobowl, as seen from the corresponding ANI post. – Ch acor 10:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and personally, this is just some horrible original research and is a non-notable term/neologism. Delete. – Ch acor 10:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. No doubt about it. Daniel .Bryant 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, even though some of this may be original research...it is research that documents a widespread current event. It's something that will definitely grow with time in both content and citations. Killing the article now would be an exercise in ignorance and shortsightedness. The FEMA trailer might seem like a small thing, but to those in the region, the trailer will become a cultural icon of the life and times. Don't delete this, because it IS relevant.--MonkBirdDuke 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes, and many did not realize it was a Federal term: FEMA Trailer. -Wikid77 14:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important part in many people's lives. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't a valid reason to keep. Especially if it's unencyclopedic, as in this case. – Ch acor 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment"Encyclopedic" and "unencyclopedic" seem to be Wikipedia neologisms which mean nothing more than "I like this article" or "I don't like it" so they shed no light on what should be kept or deleted.Edison 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Convert to stub-tag status and request sources for facts. Allow the originator or others time to expand details. The information is very detailed and, inside the FEMA or hurricane articles, the detail would be excessive. The term "FEMA Trailer" is not a neologism but, rather, a combination of the two words. The article might seem to be original research, but it is, instead, a notable topic that simply needs source references. -Wikid77 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21-October-2006: At 13:12, I converted the article to "current event" status to focus attention for rapid changes + noted term given by US Gov't (not neologism, Federal policies, not OR). -Wikid77 13:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect use of {{current}}. – Ch acor 13:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- As warned above, at 19:00 I converted the article "FEMA Trailer" to "current-event" status, after rewriting and adding 6 sources for facts. It does focus on FEMA trailers, with issues such as:

- the trailers have propane stoves but microwave ovens;

- trailers will only be installed with external electric service;

- FEMA has officially re-requested trailers to be returned when no longer used; and

- FEMA has extended the usage-deadline beyond the original 18 months.

Current news reports have indicated that FEMA trailers were still being issued in recent months, not just in 2005, hence the "current-event" status and not another description of Hurricane Katrina and such. -Wikid77 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and User:Brianyoumans. Simply as a subject, the article fails WP:N because there's really no such thing as a "FEMA trailer"; it's just a catchall term for any trailer that FEMA (or any other government or NGO entity (like the American Red Cross) happens to give you after a disaster. If there was actually a specific trailer built for FEMA to FEMA specifications (like, say, a UPS truck is), then you'd have a reason for the article to exist in the first place. But since there is no one such thing as a "FEMA trailer", there's nothing to define, and you end up with what this article actually is: a big WP:OR violation that wanders all over the place. --Aaron 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, there's no such thing as a "Space Shuttle" either: all of the orbiters are unique variations that met certain specifications at the time, whether using RAM or old core-memory circuits for the onboard computers, just as FEMA trailers must meet certain specifications at the time. Of course, the topic of "FEMA trailers" is just common sense to millions, but you could find 20 people who would agree to delete any Wikipedia article. -Wikid77 21:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if refocused. We don't have an article on FEMA camps and they're clearly notable, set up on federal land or leased private property in what, about 12 states? Some of this would fit in such an article. There were a number of features on the camps especially in the first couple of months and probably some anniversary articles as well, so they would meet WP:V. Second, the use of FEMA-issued trailers in disaster zones seems like it's a worthwhile subject, even though most of this article focuses strangely on the trailers themselves when it's more of a social phenomenon. We have a number of "effects of Katrina" articles including social effects of Hurrican Katrina and this could at least be trimmed and merged to fit into that if nothing else. Not to push countering systemic bias too far, but the people in the camps especially were cut off from the media glare and we don't know much about what happened to them. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikid77's revisions and per Dhartung's general comments about notability. also, FEMA trailer isn't a neologism; it's just a handy description. The topic would be notable under another name, unlike a neologism article. Derex 22:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAdded reference from 1995 to FEMA trailers used for 2 1/2 after 1992 hurricane. What on earth is wrong with an article on the interim disaster housing currently used to house thousands of American displaced by Katrina or future disasters? Seems well referenced. If this article bites the dust, it could be part of an article on disaster housing: tents for short time, trailers for intermediate term. Edison 22:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a place for the creation of original research. Merge to FEMA article. Violates WP:NEO. Morton devonshire 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search-hits: Today (22-October-2006), the search-hits for "FEMA Trailer" (quoted) were: Google = 242,000 hits, Yahoo = 447,000 & MS Live = 34,856 hits. However, searches for "FEMA Planning" were less than 950 on any of the big 3 SEs, perhaps "FEMA planning" would be considered original research. Per Edison above, the world has been talking about "FEMA trailers" years before Antiquipedia existed. OMG, weak-ipedias are so embarrassing. -Wikid77 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Search-hits for "FEMA plan" matched thousands more webpages than "planning" with Google-hits reported as 14,600 (non-original topic). -Wikid77 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earrings: OK, jewelers even make "Sterling Silver FEMA Trailer charm earrings" sold on ebay: ebay-webpage for Trailer earrings. Notability clue: if an article has been made into sterling-silver jewelry, then it's probably notable. Some days WP is so embarrassing. (Could someone please load the 1911 Britannica to define all non-existent classical articles?) Let this be a lesson to all of us: next time someone near NOLA submits an article, be reticent to nominate for deletion. -Wikid77 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Your behaviour on this article has been nothing short of snappy and sarcastic, and overal uncivil. Stop it. – Ch acor 02:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article has useful info, but FEMA haas been providing trailers at least since 1992, so it is odd to focus so much on Katrina response criticisms. That could better be put into Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina as a section. Then there could be a section in FEMA on housing they make available: tents (or motels or domed stadiums) for the short term, trailers for a year or 2. I find nothing in Wikipedia on "Disaster housing in the U.S." which could become important in the event of various natural disasters, wars or terrorism incidents. The stuff here which is not Katrina or FEMA criticism belongs in an "Intermediate term disaster housing" section. The article seems like too much info on too little a piece of the topic.Edison 02:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Too much information" seems an odd criticism here. If someone isn't interested in the trailers, they can stick with the main FEMA article. Having this much info there would be too much. But providing well-sourced information elsewhere is to be lauded. While it might not interest you, it probably does interest thousands of other people. Having it in a separate article guarantees that it will not overly intrude on those who do not care for this much information, while providing it for others. No reason information about 1992 trailers can't be included, an article shouldn't be deleted for being incomplete. A retitle (with redir) to "FEMA disaster relief housing" would be fine though. Derex 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --InShaneee 02:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable neologism. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, at the risk of not being able to shut up. Can we please get past the title of the article, which can be easily changed, and focus on the content. It matters not if the title is a neologism (and it's not), the title can trivially be changed to FEMA disaster relief housing or something. As to notability, these have quite substantial coverage from the NYTimes, CNN, and MSNBC. What is the standard for notability? Google News usually only keeps article two weeks to a month; "FEMA trailer" yields 170 unique hits, which to me says notable non-neologism. Derex 05:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I was focusing on the content and the title, and the content seems to be something we can do without. And 170 ghits is not enough to assert notability. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply That's google news and for a pretty old topic and for less than a month's coverage. Plain google has 238,000. Derex 00:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel confident that this is a notable subject and the referencing seals the deal. Everyking 08:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyking. I just scanned the article and I really don't see the basis for deletion. Anchoress 11:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination. -Lapinmies 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base this accusation?? wikipediatrix 11:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was neutral about this article in its initial form, but this rewrite needs to go. The original at least attempted to describe a FEMA Trailer as a subject, but this is attempting to describe some sort of possible recent culture connected to U.S. hurricanes in a region. All of that is terribly biased, since FEMA's distribution of trailers is not a new concept or limited to that region. The article as it now stands does a bad job of representing an NPOV and, quite frankly, appears to be an attempt to capture some sort of cultural phenomenon that may not be encyclopaedic at all, and may be more of a construct than a reality. Without strong academic sourcing (the sort which likely won't come until many years from now if it is to come at all), this sort of thing just doesn't seem to belong. If this article were actually focusing on the history, purpose, and use of the FEMA trailer, it might be more acceptable, although I would then likely be more inclined to merge it with FEMA; however, the article as it stands needs to go. GassyGuy 13:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Certainly not a neologism. (243,000 google hits for "FEMA trailer".) Something directly relevant to hundreds of thousands of people, has been in national and international news. Any problems with the article are better dealt with edits to improve it than deletion. -- Infrogmation 21:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this is not a neologism. As the article states, this is what FEMA itself calls the manufactured housing.[1]--Rosicrucian 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm astonished that this is up for deletion. Obvious keep. Gamaliel 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is an official US Govt. designation and the topic is important in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The article should be kept and improved. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I prefer this wording for the title (though it should probably be moved to FEMA trailer), but if people are hung up on the "neologism" issue, it could easily be at FEMA use of trailers or some such. I'd appreciate it if those advocating deletion would explain whether they would merge all this information into the FEMA article, which I think would be excessive detail there, or, if they wouldn't, then which information in the article they would instead expunge completely from Wikipedia. JamesMLane t c 10:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may be government terminology, but it is one that is in use by the print media as a term no longer needing explanation. There is a real phenomenon here. Parts of the article may still have sourcing issues, but I have complete confidence that there would still be an article worth having after any (if there is any) remaining original research was removed. GRBerry 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The status of the article now makes the problems listed in the nomination somewhat irrelevant. Notable issue, sourced, remaining problems can be handled by editing. Mango juice^talk 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because a lot of editing could turn this into a good article, but I identify with the concerns raised above by Aaron, Tewfik^Talk 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Catchpole 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.