Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoneton Fire Protection District


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Zoneton Fire Protection District

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A fire protection district doesn't have any implied geography hook for notability as it fails WP:GEOLAND, and this particular fire district also fails WP:GNG. A PROD was declined three years ago in favor of a redirection, but the redirect was recently reverted. I'm fine with either a delete or a delete then redirect. SportingFlyer  talk  23:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Talk:Zoneton_Fire_Protection_District. There is also a discussion going on about this page somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * People live in many districts across the world, but just because a government creates a district in which people live doesn't make the district a "populated place." This would make any governmentally-defined zone, such as a special tax district, automatically notable, as long as people live there, which doesn't make logical sense, especially since census tracts are not notable. The article also has no references. SportingFlyer  talk  23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer  talk  00:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe that all independent governmental units are likely to meet WP:GNG. Unlike census tracts, where they are just passive governmental units, each government district exerts a certain amount of authority (and likely has press coverage of the entity). --Enos733 (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this one, though? There are only two links in the article, one of which is a link to the website, the other to the county the district is in. A WP:BEFORE search comes up with this: which while entertaining is not notable on its own. SportingFlyer  talk  23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found four pages of (mostly routine) coverage of the district on Google News (Search "Zoneton Fire") including an article in the Courier-Journal about the water rescue. I also found this article about its 60th anniversary as a district. I am not going to say there is much independent coverage here, but there is no question that the district is itself verifiable and that their board is composed of elected officials. So, I think it is quite possible to write a comprehensive article about the district. --Enos733 (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The election's only open for three hours and only to property owners in the district, it's not even as if it's a generally elected position. Furthermore, WP:GNG requires more than just WP:V, and I still don't see significant/independent coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  00:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Per WP:GEOLAND. I see nom's point about assessment districts but nevertheless I think they're notable.  Perhaps nom might try to gain consensus for modifying GEOLAND to exclude such inhabited legally defined regions? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOLAND refers to "legally recognized places" i.e. legally recognized as a place, not a place that is legally recognized as something else e.g. a fire protection district. My back yard is a place in the genral sense of the term, and it is legally recognised as being my back yard, however it is not legally recognised as a "place".--Pontificalibus 09:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, sorry but does this mean that every government/legally authorised organisation is notable? i see from the article that this district covers "59 square miles" (is the population covered even 100th?) from its website has around 50 staff (includes 30 volunteer firefighters), i know with regard to articles that subject size doesnt necessarily matter, but from the category "Fire departments" (that covers the world) there are only about 500 existing articles whereas from Firefighting in the United States there are "27,198[1] fire departments nationwide" so does this mean we are lacking 100ths of such articles, let alone other govt. regions/authorities? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the definition of WP:GEOLAND being used above, then yes, any legally authorised organisation with a geographic footprint would be a "legally populated place." I think this is an incredibly expansive interpretation for a guideline which is supposed to give presumptive notability to cities, towns, and villages. I think this is actually a WP:NORG. SportingFlyer  talk  22:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is the question, that goes beyond this AfD. Does a governmental special purpose district (which may or may not have elected officials) fit under WP:GEOLAND, WP:NCORP, or some other policy. I think that WP:Geoland is the correct policy/guideline, for many of the reasons we keep all state/provincial legislators - to be comprehensive. We can verify a lot of things about independent governmental organizations, including their elected officers and appointed officials, their scope of jurisdiction, and activities they are engaged in. They may not be long articles, but I think as an encyclopedia, all independent governmental units are likely to meet WP:N. --Enos733 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Huh? No, a fire district does not get a free pass for notability. We should not be covering any subject about which there do not exist independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage regardless of what it is. "Presumed" notability is just that -- a presumption that may not ultimately turn out to be the case. Unless someone can demonstrate that it passes GNG, then this seems like a clear delete (not opposed to a redirect if there's a sensible target). Also, it has absolutely no citations whatsoever, and only a link to the official site. Wikipedia is not an extension of local government websites. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arguing that this meets WP:GEOLAND is a complete misunderstanding of that guideline. The guideline is intended to recognize places of human habitation, not every conceivable administrative division that contains human residents. This is the equivalent of arguing that every city block, or every street, or every house, is notable; it's an absurd argument. The places of human habitation covered by this tax district have their own articles, as appropriate. Additionally, I find no evidence that this meets GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment --, it's not a misunderstanding of GEOLAND at all. Contrary to your straw man style counterexamples, GEOLAND has nothing to do with houses, which are not places in any reasonable sense of the word.  Further, your theory that the places covered by the district have articles means that the district shouldn't have an article is also silly.  By this theory the United States shouldn't have an article since all 50 states already do. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a straw man at all. The United States is an independently notable entity: it does not require GEOLAND. GEOLAND exists to cover places of permanent human habitation not covered by other criteria for notability. Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I said that the houses were a straw man. The US example was in response to your other argument about sub-places.  Where in GEOLAND does it say that a place *must* fail to be covered by other criteria before GEOLAND applies? 192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't interpret GEOLAND to mean every kind of "overlay" district is presumed automatically notable. There is very little independent coverage. I would advocate merging into Bullitt County, Kentucky if there were any sourced material to mention there (and theoretically splitting back out into a separate article in the future if/when there was enough future independent coverage to make this district notable). But as it stands, there is not enough to establish notability and meet GNG. MB 19:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG so we can only rely on WP:GEOLAND and the only relevant criteron is "populated legally recognised places". The question therefore is whether this Fire Protection District is legally recognised as a "place". Place (United States Census Bureau) seems quite clear that a "place" in the US is defined based on an independent concentraion of population, and that an adminstrative area for a particular pupose that encompases various places is not in itself a place. Without sources supporting the notion that a US Fire Protection District is legally recognised as a "place" the article must be deleted.--Pontificalibus 08:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if WP:NGEO did apply (which I have a hard time seeing why it should), it specifically says that notability is "presumed, but not guaranteed" for features that meet WP:GNG. And to quote from WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article". Since there is no sign of significant coverage in this case that assumptions does not hold, and therefore there is no reason to assume notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (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.