Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taunton 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   merge to Taunton, Massachusetts.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Taunton Fire Department

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article as it currently stands appears to be an attempt at creating a website instead of an article. I have tried to cleanup and source the article. I find articles that discuss the department, but most of them are about fires and other emergencies the department has responded to. There is some discussion about actions the Taunton City Council has taken or proposed about the department. The department has three firehouses that are listed as National Historic Places that have their own articles. I do not believe there is enough to say the fire department is notable.  GB fan  talk 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tomorrow someone will start an article about some town's garbage collection specialists... noisy   jinx  huh? 12:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEBHOST if it's the fire department, and that and the concern about an unauthorized person possibly giving inaccurate information about emergency service if it's anyone else. Mention it in the article about Taunton, Massachusetts unless the fire department itself achieves notability beyond the local area.  Mandsford 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (probably losing most of the trivial content...) to the municipality it serves per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fire Service. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better solution than deleting the article. I wish I would have thought of it before nominating this for deletion.   GB fan  talk 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete & Merge: Nothing prevents an interested party from merging the appropriate information right now ...  Ravenswing  14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note You can't actually do that--if you deleted it, there'd be nothing to merge, and if you meant "merge then delete" that isn't permitted per our licensing. That's why merged things are kept with as redirects with the history intact. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to say that responses like that are exactly why I'm reluctant to use the "m-word" at all. A polite suggestion to the author for any interested party to transfer the appropriate info to an article is turned into a criticism of the person for even making it.  Several of us have dropped hints to the author to take the opportunity to write about Taunton's bravest, but not in an article of its own.  For my part, I don't want an article called "Taunton Fire Department" in the list of titles, I don't want to encourage the creation of other fire department articles, and I don't want to preserve the history of this newly written article or the text of the 911 protocol.  Here's the blunt version to the article's author: "If I were you, I would start writing about this in the article about Taunton, New Jersey, because it ain't gonna be around much longer."   Mandsford 22:40, 31 May 2010 (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.