Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Hill Fire Department (South Carolina)


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rock Hill Fire Department (South Carolina)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fire departments aren't notable unless they're verifiably special; this one isn't. Doesn't pass GNG, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete granted that it is not special in its own way, there are about 100-200 or so fire departments with less content here |Fire department USA. If there is nothing special about the majority of these I am not sure why there on the Wikipedia. The ones I have looked at do not pass WP:GNG or any of the Notability sub-requirements such as WP:SPIP or WP:NOTESAL. Lethal Flower ''Talk/Reply 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--it still doesn't meet the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the other Fire Department articles should be deleted in accordance to the GNG also. Im not entirely sure as to why the fire department articles are kept as they do not seem to pass any notability guideline, if yourself or another experienced user would like to answer that would be great. Lethal Flower ''Talk/Reply 03:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LethalFlower, read the essay I linked. Other articles on the same topic that don't meet the GNG should be deleted as well, but I can hardly nominate all of them at the same time. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have thoroughly read it. I believe that there is a way to do a Group Nomination? There are countless lists of police departments, List of law enforcement agencies, List of United States state and local law enforcement agencies and hospitals, . I understand that this is not a valid argument for the keep. I am simply saying that it might be best to delete a large number of these articles that do not meet the GNG, rather than submit numerous single nominations? Lethal Flower ''Talk/Reply 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not best. I have a bit more experience here, and I'm telling you, that's not a good way to go. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article suggests no notability whatsoever. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2015 (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.