Deletion of Oroville Fire Department

Comment: The previous AfD rationale for the article's deletion did not provide a valid reason for deletion but reasons to cleanup. I guess that was why {{u|Gaff}} voted its ''keep and cleanup'' in the first instance (not too sure, I might be wrong). However, it doesn't seemed to me that the issue of the subject |notability was addressed in that https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oroville_Fire_Department_(California) discussion. However, {{u|Zackmann08}} Comments; {{tq|Hello. I was hoping you could help me. I saw your comments regarding my nomination of Oroville Fire Department (California) for deletion. There is something I have never understood about the process and I was hoping you could help me understand}}  on {{u|Gaff}} talk page and their vote here as '''Keep''' suggested that {{u|Zackmann08}} don't really understand certain guidelines and policy
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Unfortunately, I can't find the significant coverages to |reliable sources that assert the subject |notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: or less favored '''Merge with City of Oroville?''' or '''delete''' for fails : My original '''keep and cleanup''' was in response to the reasons suggested for the initial AfD.  I added some content, a few refs and cleaned up the article, but have since been otherwise occupied.  In response to comments above, that I do not understand certain guidelines, that is not necessarily true (but none of us are perfect).  By the way, can somebody fix the formatting on the comments above? It is getting tough to read who said what when
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)