Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson 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   keep. Notability established, sufficient press coverage. Could use some work, but consensus appears to be keep based on the arguments and ref's put forth (non-admin closure) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Henderson Fire Department

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article looks non-notable. Just a fire department. There are tens of thousands around the world. If major news organizations cover it or if it is special because it is the biggest in the country or can put out special fires, like oil well fires, then ok. Maybe if there one or two sentences of good information, put it in the Henderson city article. JB50000 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two particularly notable fires: the MGM Grand fire and the PEPCON disaster. Over 200 employees. - Eastmain (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Just a fire department" pretty much says it; not every municipal fire department, parks department, and the like requires a standalone article.  By the way, the Henderson FD isn't even mentioned in MGM Grand fire, and even if it were, showing up to fight a notable fire does not make you notable, any more so than the company that washes the windows of the Empire State Building is notable.  I could support merging some of the scant information in this article to Henderson, Nevada if anyone is interested in doing so.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 10:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with Glenfarclas. Alexius08 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This can be mentioned in the article about Henderson, Nevada. No merge, no redirect-- as you can see from the disambiguation page at Henderson, there are lots of places with that name, ergo, and a number of them have a Henderson Fire Department.  I agree that the participation in major fires is not an argument for notability.  In multi-alarm blazes, the fight is joined by all area fire departments that can spare engines and firefighters.  Neither the MGM blaze (in nearby Las Vegas) nor the PEPCO blaze (in Henderson itself) was fought by one crew of people. Mandsford (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:LOCAL and WP:RS as mentioned in WP:LOCAL.  Also it is considered bad practice to not use an edit comment when nominating an article for deletion as was done in this case. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you actually read WP:LOCAL, it says: "if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality."  Relatedly, WP:ORG advises: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead."  I'm not seeing the significant coverage in non-local reliable sources needed to support a full and comprehensive article on this fire department.  Is there much else to be said about the Henderson FD that you haven't already added to the article?  P.S., I agree with you about the lack of edit summary.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to have sufficient RS coverage. Failing that, a merge to the locality is next most appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is better now. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sufficient references to establish notability. The article itself needs a whole hell of a lot of work, but there is no deadline, and that's not a valid reason for deletion. —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  03:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, they really just show that the Henderson FD has WP:LOCALFAME.  The city fire department is going to get mentioned in articles about local fires.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be misapplying LOCALFAME. It is unclear that anything that has independent RS falls within that category. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, believing PEPCON disaster was only a local news event is incorrect. At the time, every 'Space Nut' in the world heard about it and was interested. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of good sources for this topic which discuss the department and its policies in detail. On Google Scholar above, for example, there is coverage of its policy for asnwering alarms; its mentoring policy; &c.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - by the Noms own logic, this unit DID put out special fires. MGM Grand fire and the PEPCON disaster. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is media coverage, and it's not unusual for a fire department to have a Wikipedia article. See Las Vegas Fire & Rescue, Los Angeles Fire Department, San Francisco Fire Department, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * 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.