Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honolulu Fire 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The result was withdrawn. Speedily closed under WP:SK ground #1.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Honolulu Fire Department

Honolulu 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)

nothing to show that this fire department is particularly notable. all fire departments get some news coverage; none is shown here and I found none that showed anything other than what you would expect from a fire department. I would also oppsoe merging this info into the city's article as it would be quite WP:UNDUE for that article. Fire departments have no inherent notability and there is nothing here to show any GNG type coverage at all, and none was found on a quick search to show anything other than normal coverage. This is more appropriate to fire fan site. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - I think it is probably safe to say that the police departments and fire departments of major metropolitan centers — of which Honolulu is one — are more or less inevitably encyclopedic and the object of multiple pieces of substantial published coverage. A simple Google for Honolulu Fire Department History generates such things as THIS PIECE on the establishment of the department from www.hawaiihistory.org/ and THIS SCHOLARLY ARTICLE on "December 7, 1941—The Day the Honolulu Fire Department Went to War." Not to mention evidence of a publication by H.A. Smith History of the Honolulu Fire Department. Easy pass of GNG with the most simple of searches. The attention of the nominator is called to WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Withdraw yes, I should have looked further. the WWII angle is large. however, the out of print book is self published. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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.