Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton Fire Department

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a rough consensus that notability has now been established. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Fire Department

[edit]
Hamilton Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content, no sources, fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG Zackmann08 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete) Fire departments are not a class of topic where every one that exists is automatically entitled to an article — nearly every municipality of any size has one of either the volunteer or professional kinds, so you have to make and source some pretty distinctive and substantive claims of significance to get a fire department into Wikipedia. But that hasn't been done here — this is a one-line stub which just asserts the FD's existence and sources it nowhere. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source a real article about it.
Keep due to content and sourcing improvements by Mikeman67. More certainly still needs to be done, but what's been done so far is enough to flip me. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well said Bearcat. If this page had actual content per WP:FIRE-STRUCT... Well then it would be different. --Zackmann08 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Based on that argument any city with a high population could have a page created saying "The <insert city name> fire department provides fire protection for <insert city name>." And nothing more. If this page were created right now, it wouldn't last a day before being deleted. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that no topic of any class gets an automatic notability freebie, whereby it's entitled to keep an unsourced stub of the "Topic is a thing that exists, the end" variety. A stub, even a short one that still needs significant expansion, still has to at least make and source at least a basic claim of notability, which is not the same thing as mere existence, to be keepable. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. It is not the white pages. It is not the blue pages (for you people who remember actual white pages). It is not the government guide to Yourtown. For a fire department to be notable, it must be notable, and that means achieving notoriety, not being the subject of a budget battle or putting out a fire. Nor is a city of 500,000 more notable in this regard than one of 10,000, inasmuch as CIVILFUNCTION will remain functional on a sliding scale. Notability will be as likely in a small town as a large city, since the actions that would create it will be the same. No, being a government building does not make a place notable, unless Wikipedia is taking over the abolished Statistical Abstract of the United States. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nor is a city of 500,000 more notable in this regard than one of 10,000..." I'm afraid I'm going to have to say: Drivel! Of course it is! So, what you're saying is that the New York Police Department, if it didn't have any issues and just did its job without ever getting into trouble or getting any negative press, would be no more notable that Hicksville, MN, Police Department with its seven sworn officers? Sorry, but that is utterly and completely laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the arguments you just cited have any relation to WP's policies on keeping pages. See the WP:GNG. I think the links I posted show it clearly meets the GNG. Also, you seem to be unaware that Hamilton is in Canada, not the United States. mikeman67 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's stay within this debate and reasoning, please. An organization's struggles, as an organization doing its job, scale. The organization is more likely to affect more people adversely, if it has a large population base, and therefore a large city's fire department is more likely to have "notability" through criteria unrelated to being a fire department. Do you understand now? Making an argument along the lines you did, "Fire department, keep" is ridiculous. Saying that it's a fire department for 500,000 or 50 would not change "fire department."
      • Now, as for the second. . . huh? Of course I know what it is and where it is.
      • You imply that, if I do not say, "Fails guideline X," then there is no motion for deletion. By this, you imply that deletion is done by -bots, but keeping is done by anyone failing to be a -bot. If that's what it takes to avoid more incrimination: "Fails to meet GNG." Do I need to put a numeric code in as well? Some people believe that schools, fire departments, police departments, city halls, and probably arts centers are, by definition, items for Wikipedia. Some people do not. I do not. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not seeing the non-routine, in-depth coverage, etc. But no objection to a redirect, if desired. Neutralitytalk 18:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If there are enough sources available, they can be implemented and it would be a better article. Plus, a large city should have articles about its services. RES2773 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)RES2773[reply]
  • Comment - I've taken a first stab at expanding the article with references. More work needs to be done, but I certainly hope it's not deleted. mikeman67 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I've reconsidered accordingly, and reversed my comment above. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've also added some additional sources [7][8][9]. Altamel (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:' The person recommending deletion has a history of going through and recommending pages for deletion that should not of been recommended[1] and is particularly doing this to different fire services... so those reviewing this should keep that in mind and if it continues admin should consider sanctions. Zlassiter (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2015 (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.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hamilton_Fire_Department&oldid=1137897481"