Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brea Fire Services Department

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 no consensus to delete outright. W.marsh 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brea Fire Services Department[edit]

Sigh. Fire department cruft. Do we want an article on every fire dcepartment in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't really see a reason to delete this. It is not original research, clearly not spam and to the many people interested in or admiring America's firefighters this might be of interest. I see no difference in keeping this and keeping every article about high schools which we have already established are being kept per policy. Also, fire departments in California are of particular interest because of the number of forrest fires. I see no harm in keeping this. And this from a notorious deletionist! MartinDK 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy that schools may be kept, merely a cabal that votes in lock step. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward delete. As has been exhaustively pointed out in every school-related AfD, there is no policy in place for such things other than the usual notability and verifiability. Plus, users have a right to their "I see no harm in keeping this" opinions, but that is explicitly not a criteria for keeping an article. If there were assertions of notability in the article it would be one thing, but again, why should some things (schools, fire houses) be exempt from the explicit policy that an article must assert its subject's notability?--Dmz5 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom, or Merge (per WP:LOCAL), GAAAAH! Local-trivia-cruft is seriously getting out of hand! Xtifr _tälk 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously, I am biased because I created the article but I think there is enough information about this topic to make it worthwhile. Outside of the school argument mentioned above, there are many other areas of Wikipedia that have tons of "useless" articles. Examples: The Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks; the ABC Barn Dance, the National Barn Dance, Howard E. Scott, The Rainmakers (KC band). I personally don't consider the Miami Dolphins all that important and I certainly don't care at all for country music radio shows or certain musicians, especially ones I have never heard of before. However, they are important to someone, so much so that they took the time to create the article and are valuable to someone else who will read the article. Epolk 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that we have "tons of useless articles" is not justification for keeping yet another useless article. My fundamental criterion for keeping an article is that multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. This subject fails on that account. D enni ^talk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not an inclusion (or exclusion) criterion—but it is an essay I think you should read. The most appropriate guideline here seems to be WP:LOCAL (which you should also read). Is this topic of more than local interest? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, to pick one of your examples (which you obviously culled from our recent-edit lists), The Rainmakers (KC band) is a band I'd never heard of before stumbling across it at random. But they have charted albums and singles on two continents. Obviously a topic of interest to more than just one local community! And it needed a complete rewrite, which I provided, not because "I like it" (for all I know, I'd hate them), but because it was a topic of obvious international interest. Your local fire department, I'm afraid, is not a topic of international interest. Speaking as a fellow Californian, I don't think it's of statewide interest. And that means that WP:LOCAL is the guideline to follow. Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I live in Southern California, and there is nothing notable about this fire department, believe me. As for the list of articles that Epolk thinks are non-notable, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the first few are articles I've recently worked on. I'm not even going to try to justify those articles here, as such a discussion is not germane to this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The vote will come out however it comes out. If it goes down I guess I will have to recommend the other fire department pages for delete and start looking for other articles that have only been written or worked on by one person. Epolk 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nomination for deletion of articles solely because only one person has worked on them is not grounds for deletion, you would be violating WP:POINT if you did such a thing, and I warn you of a block if you do. If you want to delete articles which should be deleted, then by all means, do so, but bad faith nominations out of revenge will not be tolerated. I agree that most other fire department articles should be deleted, but if there is some notability which can be proven, then they might survive an AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - Sorry about the snarky comments above. It appears that my teenage son got into my Wikipedia account this weekend and thought he was helping me out. I didn't see any of this till I got into work this morning. I am going to change my settings at home so that it doesn't remember my password and am going to change my password as well. I know that saying this now will seem like I am just trying to get out of the things posted above but if you check the IP addresses for the above postings you will find that they aren't from the IP that I do most of my editing from. Epolk 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge with Brea, California (per WP:LOCAL) or keep as-is. Maybe we don't need articles on every fire service, but that doesn't mean we should nuke useful information. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I, too, live in SoCal and really don't think this is noteworthy. Heimstern Läufer 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would like to remind everyone that WP:LOCAL is proposed! It is not an actual policy. I see no harm is having tons of information of local interest only, because maybe someone local would like that information. Ariel. 06:46, 8 December 2006 (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.