Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country Fire Service dispatch

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 delete. I can't take into account Exit2DOS2000's argument, as it does not make sense to me. Sandstein 06:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Fire Service dispatch[edit]

The article is basically original research, with no support for any of the claims made. In addition it verges on an instruction manual. I would have suggested merging sourced content to Country Fire Service but there is not any. Mattinbgn\^talk 00:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Also does not meet notability requirements. Merits a section in the primary article if physical media references are available. Drawn Some (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prod'ed the article earlier... Barrylb (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you did so, does not provide a reason why you think it should be deleted in this discussion. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm lazy. However, the article is unreferenced and out of scope for this encyclopedia. Barrylb (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OR can be dealt with in this case. Merge? no, not appropriate as these are not front line firefighting personel, and are a distinctly different unit. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of those links are Wikipedia mirrors and most of the others are not independent of the subject and/or each other. Merely conducting a google search without any analysis of the substance of those links does nothing to demonstrate suitability for use in an article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that amongst the 3,950 links, some of them will validate the Article, unless you checked all of them? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't checked them all. Do you feel like pointing any particularly useful link out? A google search demonstrates precisely nothing unless it reveals a useful, reliable source and so far you haven't demonstrated that there are any. "[T]hat amongst the 3,950 links, some of them will validate the Article" is an mere assertion and not proven (or even likely to be true IMHO) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is non-notable minutiae more suited to an operational manual. If there was something distinct or unique about the dispatch procedures, then at best it could form an addendum to the parent Country Fire Service article. But I can't imagine such a minor and inconsequential topic being the subject of any discussion outside the CFS, let alone in reliable, independent sources. Murtoa (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a stub to Country Fire Service. Far too much unsourced minor detail. Here's a mention of a new computer-aided dispatch from 2007:[1] Fences and windows (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the article as it currently stands is a how-to guide for members of the community and personnel of the Country Fire Service regarding how to respond to a bushfire. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is Not, instruction manuals and how to guides are not appropriate for the website. The community should be relying on far more reliable and stable sources than Wikipedia for this information, and a Wikipedia article should not seek to duplicate or replace proper CFS training materials and procedures. In addition, the article is completely unsourced, and I believe that any encyclopedic (as opposed to how-to) information that is reliably and independantly sourced could be condensed down into a paragraph (or two at most) and incorporated into the Country Fire Service article. -- saberwyn 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CFA Dispatch, a similar article dealing with the equivalent procedures for the Victorian Country Fire Authority, was deleted by PROD back in February. This is not a "That was deleted, so this should be as well" argument: this article should be kept or deleted on its own merits. However, I think that those discussing this article should at least be aware of the prior deletion of the similar article. -- saberwyn 07:01, 5 May 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.