Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darien EMS – Post 53


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Darien EMS – Post 53

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article celebrating a small unit of volunteers who are part of a single city's EMS -- & therefore promotional, containing as promotional articles do, material of interest only to potential or current volunteers or clients.

I know there's a human interest NYT article. If GNG justifies calling this notable, then  the justification for removing the article is its fundamental unencyclopedic nature. The basic principle of WP is that it's an encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 07:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor Talk! 07:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It's out of CSD territory, however it's still WP:PROMO material, especially when factoring in the fact that the author is possibly from there, judging by content on their user page, and this article was previously PRODed last year. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While it could be rewritten to not be promotional, and AFD is not cleanup, the fact remains that this fails WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2016 (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.