Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Lofty CFS Group


 * 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. It's not that the keep arguments were particularly sound, it's just that the delete rationale was extraordinarily weak. The deletion policy advises us to err on the side of keep. Considered no consensus, but there was a majority of !votes for keep, as well, so the scales tipped that a way. No consensus is really a keep outcome anyway, so it's really all semantics. Merging and redirection can still be pursued by interested editors, as such action does not require AfD.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mount Lofty CFS Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems another unnotable rural fire brigade and should be deleted like Articles for deletion/Gwandalan Rural Fire Brigade recently. Grahame (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that "Other Stuff Does Not Exist" is not a valid deletion reasoning. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) Actually, it IS a valid argument.
 * See WP:Other stuff exists.
 * It works both ways.
 * Weak Delete (see below)
 * The "Brigades in Mt Lofty group" Heading seems to show that this is not an end-level, but a heirarchical unit. MAYBE notable "enough".
 * Perhaps a "Firefighting organizations in Australia" that could incorporate this and other articles?
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  02:49, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
 * I am guesing that you mean something like Lists of Country Fire Service groups and brigades. To incorporate all currently existing articles into this list and create a single Article would (IMHO) do a dis-service to the Wiki. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I believe that (in this instance) notability is gained from being the group command unit that issues fire bans to the general populace. WP:RS's for this fact can be found. . The units under its command should/could (IMO) be merged into this Article to improve overall quality. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - While an individual brigade may be of limited notability (not getting into this now), this article is about a group of individual brigades. CFS groups are indeed notable in the chain of command. There appears to be something of a CFS wikiproject on the go here []. Some of the individual brigade articles are nothing more than links to other brigades. These should be deleted or merged to appropriate CFS group articles such as this one. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There definitely needs to be something about Mr Lofty fire brigrades in Wikipedia. Maybe some merges of individual brigrade articles into this one?  Mr Lofty area fires are (in)famous (at least nationally in Australia), and are too often fatal or injurous, and the combatting of them over time is definitely notable.  The article does not do them justice.  Peet Ern (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the "group of brigades" and in that way, WP:OSE does not apply as it is not a lateral comparison. Based on the comments about clarifying exactly what this group is, I am changing my recommendation (cause it's "not a vote"). Perhaps some sort of policy/guideline for this could be created. I mean, does Fire Department New York (FDNY) deserve its own page? Does Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Fire Department? What about every one-engine volunteer station across the US? That doesn't even begin to get to UK, Australia, etc.
 * For that matter, maybe the WP:Other stuff exists guideline itself could use this very complicated situation as an example...?
 * Weak Keep (Based on discussion, change in original recommendation.)
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  08:01, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Where are the references from reliable sources to establish notability? There are none! This should be the most basic principle applied before an article can be kept. But here there are no reliable sources. I checked the ABC search posted earlier in this thread, and it led me on a wild goose chase. There was nothing that even mentioned the "Mount Lofty CFS Group". While each local brigade may be notable, the group isn't. Especially because it was only set up for the purposes of funding. Non-notable entity.-- Lester  13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this one help establish their ability to order a fire ban? Sometimes the Locals dont use the same name that the international community would. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Mount Lofty. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As before, "Weak Keep", but adding "OR Merge to Mount Lofty". Brewcrewer, I think, has the best answer/solution.
 * (And here I am being wishy-washy. Unintentionally so, at least!)   Vengeance is mine,  saith   the Prime  04:57, 6 Aug 2008 (UTC) 


 * Redirect to Mount Lofty - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A small rural brigade might have to strive to show notability, but this is a pretty large rural group. That's big enough for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (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.