Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croydon Fire Company


 * 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. Various sources were pointed to which prove that the fire company exists; however, no one argued that those sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. If someone wants to try to construct a referenced article about this subject, I will userfy on request. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Croydon Fire Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references at all, mass de-PROD-ding –Be..anyone (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No references, department has no website and am unable to find any sources. Very poor rational for keeping the article as is. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. This potential official site is effectively dead; this sort-of official Facebook page is for #11 and shows this website, which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: this one, and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: this one. Stories like this are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg here and here - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've just done a search of JSTOR, Muse and various other paywalled academic resources. I didn't expect to find anything and, well, there was nothing. Epeefleche has basically come up with what I've found on Google, which is mostly listings in various types of directory and passing mentions in news stories when the CFC was in attendance at incidents, most of which seem to be run-of-the-mill work for a outfit of their type. I do not have access to newspapers.com - has anyone trawled that? What we're looking for is background stories that elaborate on the history, on the changes in equipment and senior personnel etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See here, and here, and here.  But I would delete all uncited material.  Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that would be all of it... :-p --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Zackmann -- that's true, as it stands now. Refs could be added, if this is kept, from the above links I've supplied. Epeefleche (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 23:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article has no references, let alone any reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 23:13, 15 May 2015 (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.