Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire & Emergency Services

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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford West Gwillimbury Fire & Emergency Services[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single-sourced (and a deadlinked single source, at that) article about a smalltown fire department, with no evidence of notability per WP:ORGDEPTH. As written, all this really does is list what equipment they happen to have, which is not the point of Wikipedia articles about fire departments. As always, fire departments exist in almost every town or city and do more or less the same things everywhere, so they aren't all handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — they only get articles if they can be reliably sourced over WP:GNG and ORGDEPTH as the subject of media coverage — but this article provides no evidence that this particular fire department meets the requirements. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nomination. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. local emergency services are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to discuss whether this could be redirected/merged to Bradford West Gwillimbury instead
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 11:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as there is no claim made to notability (though the one citation is definite clickbait). Seyasirt (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per WP:A7 no claim of importance. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'd argue that this isn't a plausible redirect, so deletion seems to be the better option. If there is material here that could be merged over, we'd need a source for it first. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:57, 12 July 2017 (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.