Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New South Wales Rural Fire Service


 * 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 Speedy Keep as per WP:SNOW Gnangarra 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New South Wales Rural Fire Service
Basically a long laundry list of what kinds of equipment they possess, what their legislative authority is, etc. It's just about everything about the NSWRFS except an encyclopedic treatise of what they actually are, and also rather lacking in sources, and arguably, notability.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - article quality is a terrible reason to delete, and the subject is notable enough, IMO. Consider improving this instead. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is part of a complex of articles about various aspects of this fire department. There are almost no links to them from outside. THe notability level is low in my opinion. Mangoe 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, organization covers an entire Australian state, notability is reasonably clear. The article has a lot of unencyclopedic information, though. Subarticles such as Brigades of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service are very clearly non-notable. See Category:New South Wales Rural Fire Service for more. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, largest fire service in the world, responsible for 90% of New South Wales - that's notable. Needs work, but not deletable based on lack of notability. Bobanny 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Highly notable organisation with 600 Google News Archive references . Its former director Phil Koperburg is notable in his own right and is likely to be a member of parliament by the end of tonight. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Not notable? Pull your head out of your arse. DXRAW 03:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, how is this not notable? It could use improvement, but taking it to AfD seems a rather excessive and knee-jerk response.  Lankiveil 04:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, article quality is no reason for deletion. Seems to be suffering from too many tags, cleanup and improve ...maelgwntalk 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DXRAW, sanction nominator for this idiocy. Rebecca 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Half-hearted and dubious reasoning in the nomination, this is clearly notable. AfD is not cleanup, and that's all this article needs. --Canley 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator is an administrator on Wikipedia, and should know better. The RFS is one of the most notable institutions in Australia - we hear about it every summer. When will people stop using AfDs as a cleanup resource? JRG 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - An vitally important part of the the New South Wales rural community with many thousands of volunteers. Clearly notable.--Mattinbgn/talk 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep needs work, but clearly notable and should not have been nominated.--cj | talk 04:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowy keep and speedy close. Clearly notable, needs cleanup. --User: (talk • contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2007 (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.
 * 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.