Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hauppauge Volunteer 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   delete. Guerillero &#124; My Talk  02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hauppauge Volunteer Fire Department

 * – ( View AfD View log )

We don't extend notability to volunteer fire departments, at least not regularly. This one doesn't have anything special, certainly not references pointing to notability via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Was not trying to be rude, sorry if it came off that way. Not all FD are notable but a quick search of wikipedia will turn up many FD, some volunteer. That was why I said it was incorrect. Perhaps the speedy keep was a bit rushed I admit...Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Above comment is incorrect. Second, article certainly proves notability. Requires sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzaffuto118 (talk • contribs) 04:55, Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not incorrect, thank you very much, and a call for speedy keep is not worth much in this case. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the references are primary ones and even those that aren't (specifically the fire fighting magazine article) dont indicate that this is anything more that a run of the mill. With all due respect to the volunteers that staff this fire company, there just isn't a claim of notability here. RadioFan (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A quick search of wikipedia would turn up multiple hits on fire departments, some volunteer. Add in some references, and that makes this article at least notable. I personally know this town, as it is close to my hometown, and this is a very big fire department with a long notable history.Zzaffuto118 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hits on Wikipedia aren't proof of notability--besides, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That there is a notable history is an unproven and unverified claim. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Per the book sources in the article, assuming good faith that they're legitimate. They may not be primary sources, and could be titles named after the fire department, but not published by the fire department.
 * Hauppauge Volunteer Fire Department 1931-1981. Hauppauge Library. 1981.
 * Hauppauge Fire District. Hauppauge Library. 1980.
 * and two sources I added to the article:
 * Which combined, is congruent with this topic meeting WP:GNG. Also, other sources may be available. Maybe other users can find more. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they can but they haven't. Your book sources aren't impressive--they are local publications that couldn't count toward notability. As for the award you found--that's a local award handed out by Islip (town), New York, which is hardly a viable claim to fame. The Firefighter Nation, I don't know what kind of a publication that is, and the article is here--where it is mentioned one single time and nothing of significance is said; moreover, it's written by someone from that department (note the first person plural). So your claim that this meets GNG is not based on anything solid. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Northamerica, I reckon you based your claims about those book publications on the scant information that was already in the article--your assumption of good faith extends to reliability as well, I imagine. Do you have anything to say about the other two references you found there, "VESCERA, CHRISTOPHER (December 3, 2011). Interview" and "CHIARELLA, PAUL (December 3, 2011)"? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they can but they haven't. Your book sources aren't impressive--they are local publications that couldn't count toward notability. As for the award you found--that's a local award handed out by Islip (town), New York, which is hardly a viable claim to fame. The Firefighter Nation, I don't know what kind of a publication that is, and the article is here--where it is mentioned one single time and nothing of significance is said; moreover, it's written by someone from that department (note the first person plural). So your claim that this meets GNG is not based on anything solid. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, Northamerica, I reckon you based your claims about those book publications on the scant information that was already in the article--your assumption of good faith extends to reliability as well, I imagine. Do you have anything to say about the other two references you found there, "VESCERA, CHRISTOPHER (December 3, 2011). Interview" and "CHIARELLA, PAUL (December 3, 2011)"? Drmies (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Nothing beyond insignificant local coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources provided do not satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Local organizations such as this are not inherently notable just because they exist. Edison (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect: to relevant community article  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  22:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all fire departments and police departments are notable because it can be routinely expected they meet GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? (It can't.) Drmies (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fire departments always get coverage for their activities, and not just locally either. So he is correct, they meet GNG, as a quick search through Google news archive clearly indicates.   D r e a m Focus  20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RE


 * Comment and would you look at that, tons of news hits, looks like multiple non trivial coverage to me, and a book hit tooLuciferWildCat (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That book hit is nothing. I suggest you actually read WP:GNG, where you will find, in the opening sentence, the term "significant coverage". That some guy was a member of it means nothing, nothing at all. It is not significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

AfDs
Hey. I'm going to skip all the formalities since you've clearly discussed issues like this with users before. AfD !votes like this one are absurd, incorrect, and quite frankly disruptive. Please take some time away from AfD !voting and maybe read up a bit on how they work before you get involved. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I take great offense to that. You have chosen very disrespectful language and the only absurd or disruptive thing that I see here is your message. If you don't like the fact that I voted keep for something, tough noogies. You get your say I get mine, leave it at that. And every police department article or fire department article I have ever worked on was easy to find a buttload of references for it, so that is why it is reasonable to expect them to have sources and meet the GNG. Also it is very inappropriate to drag an AfD discussion to my talk page, please don't do so. If I or anyone else feels like responding then I/they will do it here if not let it go and calm down.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, that was rather rude.  D r e a m Focus  20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, Dream Focus, but when you're dealing with editors who throw policies around when it is clear they don't know what's in them, well, that's kind of insulting also. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ermm, so, all that extended content above seems to have stemmed from my comment, but I posted that on the talk page of Luciferwilfcat, not here, to avoid distracting from the discussion. So uh, yeah, guess it was moved here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - or slightly possible merge to  the locality in the amenities section.  All fire brigades cannot  be inherently  notable. Some, in  remote areas, consist  of a sole rusting  fire engine that  has not  fought  a fire in  years, and has probably  only  been used for rescuing  cats from  trees or filling private swimming pools. Mentions in  the local press are as routine as any haystack  fire, car crash, or kids with their heads stuck in the schoolyard railings. Notability would be asserted by exceptional state or national awards for valour of such  importance as their involvement, just for example, in  9/11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment- Does that answer your concern?Zzaffuto118 (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Procedural note: if editors are going  to  mess around with  the format, could they  please open  and close collapsed sections correctly  and keep  to  the chronology. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news archive search for their name without the word "volunteer" and you get a lot more results. They don't just get local coverage either.  Daily News (New York), FireFighting News, Newsday, Long Island Business News, etc.  Note that New York city has over 8 million people in it, so its not considered local coverage if you get covered in a different section of it.  The activity of this fire department and its members, does get coverage.   D r e a m Focus  20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are passing mentions of the fire department in larger news coverage about fire incidents. Nothing there demonstrates the notability of this subject.  Remember that this isn't a game of find the Google hits.  Subjects with thousands Google hits even in very reliable sources dont necessarily meet notability guidelines because the coverage isn't significant enough.  That seems to be the case here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a misrepresentation, the articles are talking about the fire department too, in fact all of them cover the department, only each one covers its individual fire. They are not good sources for an article on every fire but they are routine non-trivial coverage. It says which engines went, what the investigation has uncovered et cetera.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point that RF is making is that fires always get news coverage, even if the fat went up in flames in  the local fish 'n chip shop.  By  the same token, we would have to  accord notability  to  every  2-man police station because the local  newspaper gives a couple of lines every  time they  use their blue light  and siren. In  some villages with  more than three pubs, that could be once every  evening, or 365 mentions a year for your Google hits. If the reliable local  paper happens to  one for a big  city, it  doesn't  make the cops more significant or the column filler more important. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your right every station doesn't warrant coverage, but every department does, especially when sources are apparent. I don't know what you mean by 365 mentions a year, are you interpreting keeping the article for one department as meaning we should keep/write an article on every incident? That is not what I said by any means.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Covering it even when "the fat went up in  flames in the local fish 'n chip shop" sounds like routine coverage to me...  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that this meets or will ever meet the relevant inclusion criteria, notability is never inherited. Mt  king  (edits)  04:15, 15 January 2012 (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.