Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Equipping Force

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Equipping Force

Rapid Equipping Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unsourced, promotional, original research  Chzz  ►  18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: some of the text appears to have been copied from here: [1]. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that this is a component or task force of the US Army, it is my belief that it already is notable enough to warrent an article, not that the current article isn't in need for a major cleanup, additional citatible references, etc. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. AfD is not cleanup. If you come across an article like this again, please do the work of finding reliable sources and rewriting it rather than sending it for deletion. Fences&Windows 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as a component of the Army. Don't like the cut and paste job though. Certainly needs help. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For the same reasons I stated last time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Faux keep for the purposes of comment: I would hate to lose the mention of "robots for interrogating caves". Obviously as vital as the robots themselves; the US Army has recently had to give away its supply of the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, friends of someone who brought the coffee to a meeting an Al Qaida member was at, etc, and needs something new to interrogate. Jargon-filled copy-paste of a training manual with Army Strong (pheeew, who did that) advertising overtones. Civvies don't care. Lifers don't own WP. Anarchangel (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2009 (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.