Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swartz Creek Area 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. slakr \ talk / 04:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Swartz Creek Area Fire Department

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing whatsoever to indicate any notability. The existence of a self published book says nothing John from Idegon (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Swartz Creek Area Fire Department is notable as it was a private fire department that was force to turn its assets over to the local governments as being illegal then ran as a multiple government department. The Swartz Creek Area Fire Department is not the publisher of Going Up the Swartz book that is sourced. Spshu (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mlive.com/Flint Journal, a regional newspaper, has several articles on Swartz Creek Area Fire Department. Some now included from the Flint Journal in the article covers regional instructor award given to chief and the unusual three generations serving the same department. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I did not say the fire department published the book. I said it was self published.  Last time I looked, the Swartz Creek Bicentennial Commission is not a publishing company.  Hence, the book was self published and worthless as a source to show notability. John from Idegon (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. Self published in that sense would mean that Yutha Hayes, the author, was also the publisher as I understand that proviso. Being a "publishing" company isn't a criteria, else broadcasting company news unit websites would be self publishing too. That might rule out publishing arms of universities or publishers owned by larger media companies. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Small town fire department. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although some decently referenced content has been added, it is trivial, and it has all come from the local area and does nothing to satisfy WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. There was one story that hit the wire and got picked up in Ludington about a fire, but stories on fire departments fighting fires do not show their notability either. All fire departments fight fires.  That is what they are supposed to do. And I'm sorry you are not getting this, but self published simply means not published by a publishing house. Your arguments are red herrings. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I have seen a article fly through AfD with only a single self source (they source the organization's website) with the addition of some vague claim of large membership numbers.It help if you can read, the Ludington Daily News article which was by the AP. Which means it was a national available article was not about a fire but the fire station being hit by a tornado. Not a single article sourced in the article as is are not about fighting fire. I did get your self publish point, but it also covers websites. Just because you are not getting this, WP:USERGENERATED : "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Making up that the articles added are just about fighting fire with out reading them are red herrings. IDHT doesn't mean that I cannot bring up a new source to show notability, that would be stomping round getting mad about the outcome here after this discussion is closed. Spshu (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Request. If consensus is for deletion, I request that the article be move to my sandbox space or allowed to copy over info to Swartz Creek, Michigan article.Spshu (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local organization, no coverage outside the county. Kraxler (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - Ludington, Michigan, thus Ludington Daily News, is in Mason County, Michigan on the west side of the state, not Genesee County, Michigan where Swartz Creek is located. The article was generated by the Associated Press, a national organization. The article covers significantly the department as its then only fire station (hall) was hit and destroyed, etc. Spshu (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article published in the Ludington Daily News has exactly one three sentences which mention that the Swartz Creek fire hall was destroyed. The article reports at length about a tornado hitting the city of Swartz Creek, it does not discuss in any way the fire department per se. Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Corrected. Kraxler (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Fire department has three paragraphs, the second that has the single sentence mention the hall was hit then paragraphs 6 and 7 continue about the damage done. Paragraph 6 indicated via the Fire Chief that no personnel was hurt given no one was inside the building while paragraph 7 goes on about equipment damage. The Fire department is personnel, building and equipment (etc), so that is per se. Effectively, the department could have not been operational depending on the damage to the fire trucks in its then only hall. Spshu (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And if the tornado had hit the supermarket next-door, then that would have become notable? Sorry, but I suggest you try to understand what the difference is between a "trivial mention" and "in-depth coverage" according to WP:CORPDEPTH. The article does not discuss the department (history, organizational structure, attitude, past events) but reports about a weather occurrence in a certain place, trivially mentioning the presence of the subject of this article. Kraxler (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you need to reread that WP:CORPDEPTH as the article does not meet any of the trivial coverage criteria as the article's content was not a schedule, a directory listing, routine, brief nor a passing mention. It has four sentences in three paragraphs, which is not a passing mention. Spshu (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The closer of this discussion should assess who is right here. Kraxler (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, insufficient coverage in reliable sources; most, if not all the sources only mention the SCAFD in passing. Would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.  Ghostwheel ʘ 20:43, 18 June 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.