Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Pueblo Firefighters Association
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Old Pueblo Firefighters Association
Non-notable labor union. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Well, there is this [1] and this [2]. I'm sure that the Arizona Star is a reliable source. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - This perticular one may be small, but Trade Unions are notable. Cites are recomended, but, AfD is not for forcing article improvement. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Update - I have added EL's highlighting the fact that this FireFighting organization is a Corperation/Business, not your usual public service fire department. The reletive uncommoness of the Business aspect I believe supports the Notability of this Article's subject. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Having twelve toes is unusual, that doesn't mean that everyone with twelve toes is notable. In this case the sourcing required for a topic to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for organisations has not been shown to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct in some degree, however I believe there are more people with 12 toes in the US, than there are For Hire Fire Dep't business' and their (non-IAFF) Labour Unions. It is that rareness that does make this, and its related Articles, encyclopedic to document. The only Policy that must be satisfied is WP:V, and that has been done. There is no hurry to satisfy the other Guidelines that you quote. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Having twelve toes is unusual, that doesn't mean that everyone with twelve toes is notable. In this case the sourcing required for a topic to meet the primary notability criteria or the specific criteria for organisations has not been shown to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources. Of the two sources given above one appears to be about a trivial mention in a "Community Notes" section and whilst I can't view the body of the other article,the title "Local firefighters sent $115,000 to N.Y." suggests that it is a one off news story about a fund-raiser and will likely not contain enough encyclopaedic information about the organisation to justify an article. Guest9999 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:ORG. Is every small labor union notable, I think not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The only 3rd party references are trivial. Plvekamp (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2008 (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.
