Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Fire Department

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. Opinions are roughly split as concerns notability, and in particular, whether the sourcing is substantial enough. This is a matter of editorial judgment, and without consensus about this issue, the article is kept by default for now.  Sandstein  16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Department

Richmond 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)

Short, unsourced dead end with no claim to notability. Nouniquenames (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Obviously every city has a fire department. The article for Richmond, California has a link to the official city website which takes you to the fire department site. All the info in the article is already there. No secondary sources provided to show the notability, although of course every fire department is mentioned in the news almost every day but that's not coverage in depth. Borock (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is more than trivial coverage for sure, the Richmond Police Department clearly gets a ton of coverage and their shared labor unions have been blasted in the press for their manipulation of local politics and corruption. Furthermore copious coverage even if less than in depth based on sheer volume is considered in its totality especially when you can add numerous facts together. Most American fire departments are their own government agency with a unique history, different than say a military unit and are thus automatically notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep This is a reasonable stub article with plenty of opportunity for material to be added to the existing article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, until this plenty of material actually is found and added, this article is not passing the GNG. Seriously, giving a Keep vote without actually addressing the fact that there are currently no in depth secondary sources doesn't actually do anything to solve the notability issues that caused this article to be nominated for deletion in the first place. Rorshacma (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Police Departments, High Schools, Fire Departments, Transit Systems, Settlements, and other specific categories are generally automatically notable since the sources are easily found and they are society topics that people would reasonable like to know about. If we delete now, the sources will never show up. Richmond VA is causing trouble but we should wait this one out as the department exists and it is for a major port city of over 100K people and well written at the moment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge without a redirect (because there are so many other cities named Richmond). Google News Archive finds plentiful links for "Richmond Fire Department" but they relate to larger cities named Richmond in other states and provinces. Limiting the search to California finds passing mentions but no coverage in depth. It should be noted that LuciferWildCat's opinions about things being "automatically notable" are often at odds with Wikipedia consensus. I have never seen any consensus that police departments, fire departments, or transit systems are automatically notable; they have to demonstrate their notability by showing Significant Coverage by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant depth of coverage in any of the sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Richmond, California, which is notable, and the fire department is a significant aspect of the city. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect Merge to Richmond, California - there is not enough sourced material here to justify a stand-alone article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you know if Fire Departments were say retail companies they would be considered notable as per the amount of branch locations and workforce and service area. Furthermore I am already finding sources and in a city like Richmond with the General Chemical Company poison gas cloud and the Chevron Richmond Refinery they have had a role in answering a lot of very serious events, and those were also major news item type calls and we just have to dig a little before we indiscriminately and spuriously hit the chopping block. Is there a procedural mechanism to extend the AfD a while longer or suspend it while improvements are made? I am disappointed in you Melanie, it seems like you have simply given into the deletionists side just to avoid the debate itself but hopefully I will inspire you to overturn with some cleanup and you too North America.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The one source that has been added since this nomination happened does not help matters at all. It is an article about a Cinco De Mayo parade in which the fire department is mentioned amongst many other organizations that participate. That is the very definition of a trivial mention and does nothing to establish notability. Furthermore, calling out specific users and accusing them of giving in to "deletionists" is in excedingly bad taste, and makes it sound like you think that this is some sort of conspiracy specifically to get rid of this article, rather than multiple people just agreeing that this topic is just not notable. Rorshacma (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following MelanieN's work on including relevant information into the city's article, I have changed my !vote to delete - there are other Richmonds, so this is not the primary subject for this title, so there is no reason to keep it as a redirect - indeed, if there was any primary subject under this name, it would probably be the much larger Richmond, Virginia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is just one, I have found several others, the one's from the 1990s are harder to get by, does anyone know of a way to get someone with access to lexus nexus to help me out a bit? There are numerous other sources I just need to work them in still and copious routine coverage is very indicative of notability especially for the fire department of a major city. MelanieB and NA and I have a long history of having collocated edits and working on Bay Area related articles, no conspiracy is alleged at all, we have just all dealt with an incredibly high level of drama with certain other users is all and I am mentioning that a bit of fatigue might have set in, make sense?LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also it seems having an article for every school district, police department, fire department is the norm per
Santa Rosa Fire Department. Nevertheless these are often also their own legal entities such as a Fire Protection District and are quite obviously and inherently of note, interest, and of educational and historical and henceforth encyclopedic value.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment New sources do not convince me that this department is notable enough for a stand-alone article, so my Redirect above stands. If this was a company, I would not consider it notable enough, if it was another organisation then I would not consider it so, either. Having an article for every fire department, etc, is not the norm. Fire departments are not inherantly notable, they need to clearly meet the
organisations) and this one does not. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This department clearly meets the GNG, there are multiple non trivial sources that cover the department and its operations in depth, as is common for any fire departments in the United States in city's with fire departments and newspapers. Are you saying the sources don't cover it in depth and that there are not at least two of them, in addition to other sources providing additional content?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources, at a glance, cover events in a way that mentions the fire company in passing (See
WP:EVENT would likely prove a barrier)--Nouniquenames (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
No not in passing, read all of them, some are entirely about the fire department. And it is not a company, fire departments don't make any profits and are not private operations, they are public entities. The events are what makes a department exist and what it does and answers too. Your argument is like claiming that the articles should be on chocolate bars or cocoa powder not the Hershey's or Ghiradelli company because the company is not notable just its service, or a gym is not notable, only its obese customers are.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Ohio's Revised Codes (as they are close at hand) and take note of the fact that a fire department can in fact be a private organization. (Source: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.60 Point A5). A Pennsylvania fire department's constitution and bylaws identifies a township as responsible in case of dissolution, but the department otherwise exists as an independent (non government) organization (see http://www.sipesvillefire.com/constitution.html). This supports
WP:CORPDEPTH as applicable. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. Like I said: escalating the drama. I couldn't even post the above note, because of an edit conflict with your constant repetition of the same points. Please calm down, you are hurting your cause rather than helping it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even the one's that only cover the fire department itself? The coverage about any topic is just the normal news coverage about it and what it does, a bank just its money and loans, a furniture chain and its defects and couches, a car company and its recalls layoffs and products. That reaks of IDONTLIKEIT and surely if the individual councilmembers are generally found to be notable and the Richmond Police Department and Richmond City Council and the city's damn Refinery are found to be notable the Fire Department is too, there just seems to be a warranted continuity there. Those are the merits I'm talking about, I feel your ratationale here was rather defeatest and that the article could not possibly be improved or ever warrant an article, and I did not repeat myself, I found new arguments and information to support my claims, there seems to be an article for every city's fire department here, many with a majority of just a list such as San Francisco Fire Department and no one is suggesting we delete all of those too. This is an important society topic that you read about in the paper, the ease with which I found sources should point out that this is of note, mind you I have yet to do a check on the Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, or Contra Costa Times. I bet if we actually worked to find more sources this could even be a good article. Honey I am calmed down this is just wikipedia but I am confused that every other city has this article but Richmond is being omitted penchantly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Luciferwildcat, you could always have an entire Wiki just about Richmond, California - either get your own domain and install MediaWiki on it, or go to
verify the information. In this case, that standard is not met. A mention of the fire department could be made in the Richmond, California article (although a sentence or two would probably suffice), but more than that just is not justified from what I can see. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds like you are so much fun, knowing how to write articles about rocks and such, wow I wish someday I could be as sardonic as you, don't know if I can achieve that baby. The GNG is met, newspapers are reliable sources and I have numerous articles about this department cited in the article, give it a read.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that
WP:RS is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Major metropolitan newspapers generally meet that standard (with the obvious exception of tabloids). But many "newspapers" do not meet the standard of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those that do not include most hyperlocal papers, most free weekly or monthly publications, and most online publications (with some notable exceptions). The citations that you have found all fall in those latter groups. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry that you mistake my AfD nomination for laziness. The article was poorly titled (as Richmond, to many readers, will not immediately resolve to this particular location) and, more importantly, completely unsourced. Since it was unsourced, it completely failed the
WP:CORPDEPTH. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
You should make BEFORE attempts, that is what I meant by lazy, it was not hard to find sources and it is a lot easier to try and make some/any improvements, I feel you might just be sore that I have sourced the article and would still vote delete if it was on the cover of the ny times for a week straight. Really? The Richmond Fire Department is poorly titled, hmm well maybe you should petition the city to change its name or change it from fire department to blaze abatement unit of the city of Richmond lol. The article is not unsourced, not completely nor partially not ever. Notability is not failed for lack of sources, stop ignoring all the policies (ahem NRVE). The events are the events of the fire department and what the fire department does at these events. Not the events on their own without explaining the fire department's role.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a delete or a merge without redirect. --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are still waiting to see all these sources you claim exist. And please grant good faith to those here who DID do a search (see my links in my first comment above) and found little or nothing. Stop accusing those who disagree with you of laziness and carelessness. It violates Wikipedia
policy and reflects badly on you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
What people? Do you believe most of those stating keep are from the ARS? Anyone can include things in whatever wikiprojects are relevant. And whom are you referring to specifically? It gets coverage, so it passes
WP:GNG. "Richmond Fire Department" and "California" gets 17 matches at Highbeam [1]and 122 results at Google news archive search. [2] I see mention of them collecting over a thousand toys to give to people, plus coverage of one of their fire chiefs who died, and other things, not just coverage of them putting out fires. Search through all of that, and you'll surely find something to convince you. I'm convinced already, so won't bother looking farther. Dream Focus 18:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Since you ask, Dream Focus, yes, you are one of the people I am talking about. You always seem to turn up when something has been tagged at ARS, and you always seem to !vote "keep". According to this tool, you !voted "keep" 97.8% of the time out of your last hundred !votes. I would be more accepting if I occasionally saw you make improvements to the article (which is what I do when I want to rescue an article), instead of simply arguing "keep". Difference of philosophy I guess. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It says I had 87 times I said keep and twice I said delete, with the other 11 times it not listing either of those. Articles like
List of magazines released by Marvel Comics in the 1970s preserving the bulk of the article which had valid content. Notice that most of the ones I say Keep in are kept. If I don't believe something should be kept, I simply don't comment at all, since nothing is ever gained by senseless destruction. Only articles that really need to be killed do I ever vote delete on, or at times even nominate for deletion myself. And I do add valid content to articles when I can find something I believe needs to be added that wasn't already. [3] [4] I didn't participate in this AFD when it was first tagged, but waited until I noticed work had been done on it, and was then convinced it should be kept. Not every article tagged for rescue do I choose to participate in, and I do look through Google news archive search, my highbeam account, and other sources before stating my opinion it should be kept. I am not a mindless inclusionist machine that just spouts out generic keep votes. Dream Focus 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
MelanieN, please
Deletion sorting is a perfectly standard and accepted practice, and used to broaden participation and improve discussion. If you have a problem with any particular WikiProject or their participants, then take it through dispute resolution
and raise it as an issue on its own. This discussion has been opened a week and half, and listed in 3 deletion sorting WikiProjects, that's plenty of time and places for editors to end up here. Personally, I haven't even heard of ARS before reading your accusation, I know about this discussion from when it was first nominated as I was the one who contested the PROD as potentially controversial. Just because you disagree with someone opinion doesn't mean they are any less valid than your own.
Secondly, your point that other California cities of this size fire departments do not have articles disprove LuciferWildCat's argument is simply logically false. Those articles doesn't exist could just mean that they haven't been written yet and not that they are unnotable subjects for inclusion. KTC (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would add a few of those Chronicle articles to the page, we could evaluate them. But all you did was link to search results. I glanced at a few of those results and they were just mentions; they were not ABOUT the fire department. I did not look at every single article in the search and it would be unreasonable to expect me to. If you feel some of these articles have relevance, then cite them. At this point the article does not show significant coverage from reliable sources as required, and neither does this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have to include them and yes you do have to read them and consider them, especially since I am pointing out one specifically. The notability does not unexist just because the citations are not inline or even in the article, their mere existence is sufficent. If you don't want to consider them, that's your problem.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have so far failed to convince anyone that there are actual Reliable Sources with Significant Coverage about this department. As long as you refuse to identify any specific references from reliable sources - as long as you keep saying "sources exist" without actually showing us any - don't expect to change any minds. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luciferwildcat - just giving a list of possible sources is not sufficient. If you can't be bothered to actually look through them and find the ones which actually are of use (if there are in fact any), why should we do your homework for you. Like MelanieN, I looked through some of them, and found nothing suitable. As she says, if you want to find some specific ones which could be used as a reliable independent source which has significant coverage of RFD, I would be happy to look at them and consider them - but I am not going to do your work for you. If you think this article should be kept, you need to actually do a bit more work, rather than expecting us to do it for you. You might as well linked to a Google Search result and say "there are more than 6 million results, I think you should look through them for something suitable"! All the ones I looked at were minor/routine mentions of the Fire Dept, nothing that could be used here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the "car arsons" story in the "san francisco chronicle" don't you all --- understand?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Still no link, so I can only guess which articles you are talking about. If you are referring to this story or this one, the first contains one quote from a spokesman for the Richmond Fire Department, and the second merely says "...and the Richmond Fire Department is investigating at least two more" (incidents of car fires). This is exactly what Phantomsteve and I and others have described as passing or trivial coverage. We are still waiting for you to point us to articles with significant coverage.--MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria might be useful to go over for this, since it specifically states that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" does not count towards notability, which that first link certainly falls under. Rorshacma (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richmond_Fire_Department&oldid=1144342292"