Pasco County Fire Rescue : References are all either connected to the organization or consist of routine coverage.  Nothing else on the page indicates notability under WP:NORG .  Apocheir ( talk ) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions .  Apocheir ( talk ) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would like to know why it was “nominated for deletion” because it “isn’t notable” when this is one out of many articles that are similar within the fire department wiki.  There is other articles that have barely any text on them that are still up.  Second with the sources, they’re all sources that have confirmed information.  No news site is telling you how many calls and how much money the agency is making so that’s the point why I used actual factual data for that portion.  I also have fixed other sources in the past that heavily relied on Pasco county fire rescue webpage that now redirect to news sites.  I’ve put a LOT of time into this, and seen that you nominated it for deletion the same day I finally got it posted even though I’ve fixed what I’ve been been told to fix in the past it’s a little aggravating.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you can provide some helpful tips on what to fix within the article, instead of deleting the whole thing that I spent two weeks on.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - This looks pretty good to me.  This is a fairly new editor who has done pretty good this early on.  I'm not sure what is wrong with "routine coverage".   It's more or less in line with other such articles linked to the Florida fire departments navbox — Maile ( talk ) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When I first started working on the article, i looked at probably 20 different fire rescue articles on here and a lot of them was missing  information, and a few of them even only had just an intro and a very limited infobox, that was it.  So I was shocked to see that this one was nominated for deletion with it being more detailed than a lot of the other articles within the fire department navbox.  For the annual calls i used the IAFF website as they are the only website listing how many calls there is per year and that’s going to be accurate because it’s from the source.  There isn’t no “news articles” stating how many calls they ran in 2023 either, which I wouldn’t expect there to be for any fire department.  For the budget I got it straight from the source as well.  And I would think this fire department is pretty notable as it’s a fire department in a county that is the second fastest growing county in Florida, at least, according to USA today.   Plus when I was working on a draft I was told to not use the Pasco county fire rescue website so I didn’t.  I switched all my sources to something else which had the same information and it still got “nominated for deletion”.  Your right about me being a new wiki contributor, and I was hoping to be able to create an article that would be informational and accurate and I felt that I did just that.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Been there.   My first attempt at an article was immediately slapped with a deletion nomination.   The article survived, and so did I.  Hang in there.  — Maile ( talk ) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP - I strongly advocate for keeping the article.  The article is well-written and demonstrates extensive research, supported by credible citations.  It provides information that directly benefits a specific niche within our community, enhancing Wikipedia's value as a comprehensive knowledge resource.  This article strengthens Wikipedia's mission of sharing reliable information.  Furthermore, I believe that overly strict or blind adherence to guidelines can discourage contributions from new editors.  Wikipedia thrives on the diversity of perspectives and expertise that new editors bring.  A balance between maintaining standards and encouraging participation is essential for Wikipedia's continued growth and excellence.  skarz ( talk ) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as this article has potential to be expanded from its history section.  A lot of these articles usually get redirected to their municipality as an ATD but I see there's sufficient sources and it's not a run-of-the-mill fleet inventory list.  I would expect a county's fire rescue unit to have a lot of sources from its own government - it's transparency to the people.  It wouldn't be hard to get secondary sources from the local newspapers as well which would confirm the same findings and/or get a quote from government officials.  I have always wondered about this guideline when it came to city or county government - is that not a Catch 22 ?  It just seems it's at the mercy of secondary sources where you have unchecked synthesis (unless you're familiar with the reliability of the source ) but that might be for another discussion.  In short, there such be a rational nexus for the guidelines.  – The Grid ( talk ) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Pasco County, Florida#Public safety As is painfully standard for this article area lately, an overwritten PR piece with unadulterated promo copy rather than a balanced and critical look at a county fire department, WP:NOTDIRECTORY for the list of stations, which is frankly overdetail that could put the department at risk since its vehicles are detailed down to where they're parked, and worst of all, the article seems to be a skeleton built around three vehicle photographs with visible watermarks as a favor to the nominator's friend, which is incredibly unacceptable and disallowed.  I don't know what the original rationale was behind the article, but this feels more like a vanity article that feels more like the article writer trying to rush glory onto the encyclopedia rather than trying to be truly informative.  Nate • ( chatter ) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Would like to give a few words on this, the “down to where they’re parked locations” come from their website so obviously it’s not a safety risk as they are the ones who put it out.  If you look at most other fire departments on wiki they all have the same thing.  Next if the watermarking is an issue, I could fix that.  It isn’t a vanity piece either like your suggesting that it is.  It’s just an article on the fire department nothing deeper than that.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, with the “built around three vehicles” one of the photos don’t even have a vehicle featured in it.  One of them a vehicle one of them is firefighters, and the other one is a fire station.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Update: the watermarking/photo issue has been fixed.  Photo no longer in any violation.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Pasco County, Florida .  The list of fire stations is pure WP:NOTGUIDE fluff, while the rest of the article is easily mergeable.  Sounder Bruce 06:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And yet, Wkikpedia has Category:Fire departments of the United States by state — Maile ( talk ) 11:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Why would the article be merged when there’s a whole wiki category for it.  With that logic merge all articles within Category:Fire departments of the United States by state to their county Ryan Watern ( talk ) 11:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Maile66 and Ryan Watern1 , the notion that an article should be kept because there is a category it could fit into is ludicrous.  Condider Category: Dentists .  We have several hundred articles about notable dentists in that category.  But there are over 200,000 dentists now active in the United States, and presumably millions worldwide.  It would be ridiculous and unsustainable to have millions of Wikipedia biographies of run-of-the-mill dentists.  The same standard applies to dentists as to fire departments.  An article is justified only when the topic is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic.  That is literally the only thing that matters.  The New York City Fire Department clearly meets that standard.   Most fire departments don't.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] After taking a look at the New York fire department article, there is various sources in there that link to the department page, the same argument that’s been brought up here is happening there as well.  Wouldn’t consider that article completely independent.  I’ve yet to find a fire department article that is completely independent that doesn’t have a single link to the department page.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ryan Watern1 , once the notabilty of a topic is well-established, then limited use of the subject's website is acceptable according to WP:ABOUTSELF .  I am not asserting that the NYFD article is perfect.  It is B Class, after all, and has not passed a Good article or Featured article review.  But no sane person with the slightest understanding about how Wikipedia works would argue that the NYFD is not notable.  And notability is the issue here, not the quality of any given article.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 04:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And there’s a lot of unsourced information.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In this article out of the 26 sources 17 of them have no relation to the department, and I could easily add more which I do have plans to do.  The Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why I linked the category here.   As long as the subcategories by state exist, what you are dealing with here is just one user's POV.  One editor likes it one way, and the next editor likes it another way.   Such is Wikipedia.   I say there are enough already established to keep the Pasco County one.  — Maile ( talk ) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We also have Commons:Category:Fire departments of the United States available to anyone who wants to add images.  — Maile ( talk ) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My only issue with the whole "what Wikipedia is not" policy is that you will find thousands of articles that are contrary to that policy.  Often with useful and verifiable information that betters society.  Whenever there is any question of whether something belongs on Wikipedia, a good place to start is WP:IGNORE .  skarz ( talk ) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , with the caveat that the big table at the end has to go.  It's bulky and goes into excessive detail.  It is clear beyond that, however, that we have articles for other fire departments, so why not this one?  People, I you are actually worried about article spam, go police corporations or BLP articles.  This is more than fine compared to the stuff on there.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion I think the table at the bottom within the station in apparatus section is a vital part of the article.  Some may disagree but if you take a look at other fire departments on Wikipedia, almost every single one has a table.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 04:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Re the table, you are correct, Ryan Watern.   I did a random check from Category:Fire departments of the United States by state , and most I found have such a table.  So, there is a standard already established for the table to be in the article.  — Maile ( talk ) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you!  When building this article i tried to get a common theme of everything within several different articles in the fire department category, looking at things that are commonly added and things that are commonly missing from various articles and put it all together to build this one!  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Everyone who has voted keep so far needs to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions .  Apocheir ( talk ) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] and you need to read the essay about trying to make a point (example 2).  There are going to be viewpoints that differ from you .  – The Grid ( talk ) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Delete per the original nomination The Trash Compactor ( talk ) 01:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: User:The Trash Compactor is a new editor.  Based on their editing history, a possible vandal.  Their first five edits were "Delete" on this nomination, plus Articles for deletion/Amaron , Articles for deletion/DOVO Solingen , Articles for deletion/Spaghetti Taco and Articles for deletion/Gharanai Khwakhuzhi .  — Maile ( talk ) 13:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile ( talk ) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It should be known for the closing admin that the nominator is systemically clearing a lot of the fire department articles as redirects based on lack of notability.  They are bold actions but they seem excessive when notability can always be established for tagged articles regardless of time frame because there's no deadline .  I bring their GAR of Briarcliff Manor Fire Department , where they object a good-rated article and ponder if it should be sent to AfD as their good article review?  I have never heard of such a thing except if it was a hoax.  This is insane with the sourcing provided.  This is the complete opposite of WP:HEYMANN .  I question what you even think is a good fire department article.  – The Grid ( talk ) 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Grid , I have noticed it.  Apocheir has been doing that to a lot of articles.  As far as I can tell, there are not necessarily always discussions to go along with the action.   And there seem to be a lot of focus on stand-alone articles such as this.  Somebody does all the work to get a nice article like this one, and somebody else comes along and on their own redirects it.  We really need a separate open discussion about this issue.  Would anyone care to open such a discussion at WP:ANI ?  I think it's very important to clear the air on this, and get a general consensus.  Otherwise, it's just going to keep happening.  — Maile ( talk ) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Grid / Maile66 - I went ahead and started the ANI discussion right here .  Feel free to chime in if my initial report wasn't adequate enough.  skarz ( talk ) 04:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you.   I have commented over there.  I think it's important to establish a guideline for this.  — Maile ( talk ) 11:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There already is a very clear guideline, Maile66 , and it is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) .  So, those who want to keep this article ought to explain how this specific fire department meets that particular notability guideline.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm in agreement with @ Cullen328 -- I read through this and have not seen a cogent argument layed-out as to why this subject meets the notability guidelines sufficiently.  There is argument about how "this article should be ok because there are other similar articles that haven't been deleteds" -- I don't believe that is how this works.  In fact, I see that most of the other articles about Florida fire departments also have warning flags about notability.  Wikipedia is not a list of everything in the universe.  Likewise, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not get around the notability requirement, and a phonebook is useful, but Wikipedia cannot be turned into one.  The notability qualifications need to be clearly spelled out here by those who wish to retain the article, or else this just resembles a popularity contest.  The argument that "someone spent a lot of time putting the article together and we don't want that to go to waste" is likewise not relevant to whether the article meets the minimum qualifications to be present and maintained.  WmLawson ( talk ) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to Pasco County, Florida , unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of this fire department and that meet the standards at WP:NCORP .  Cullen328 ( talk ) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My question is how does this pertain to government departments?  NCORP lists everything except governmental departments.  Is it wrong to assume you're going to find a good percentage of information from the municipality as a primary source?  – The Grid ( talk ) 19:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Right now, this is No consensus between editors arguing that sources are sufficient and the article should be Kept and editors advocating Merge/Redirect seemingly on the basis of how similar articles have been handled and because of perceived "fluff".  As for NCORP, it's unclear, government agencies aren't included in the list of subjects that this policy covers but they are also not included in the list of exceptions either.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Mental note about primary sources policy Thanks for the great summary of the discussion, @ Liz .  Making a mental note here because I'm sure my discussion is more about the policy and not to get away from the main point of this AfD.  It's always made me wonder with presenting the case for government departments when it comes to primary sources.  WP:PRIMARY states Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.  but also policy criteria number 5 notes Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.  .  That's where I imagine you have secondary sources come in to reverify statements.  WP:NCORP states the importance of secondary sources from the established notability ( WP:ORGCRITE ): A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  The ultimate question for government departments: is it ok for these entities to have a lot of primary sources?  (given WP:SNYTH , also this does not require a response) – The Grid ( talk ) 15:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd like a response from @ Cullen328 on the above policy issue raised by @ The Grid , very curious what their thoughts are.  skarz ( talk ) 04:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reply Skarz , please note that WP:NCORP says The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.  Please note that the guideline applies very broadly, except for three specific carve-outs.  None of those three apply in this case.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 05:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Article has been updated on 28th of March addressing a lot of concerns.  The table is now collapsible for the reader which will free up space in the article for those that don’t want to see a large table within the stations and apparatus section.  Those who do want to see all the information on the stations and apparatus will have the option to see it.  Various new sources were added, most of them from news stations that reported on the agency.  And some new sourced information was added to the article as well.  Ryan Watern ( talk ) 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The non-independent and primary sources in the article are good for verification but do not help to establish notability.  I'm not immediately seeing how any single source meets NCORP WP:SIRS primary criteria because those in the article are either not independent WP:ORGIND and/or do not amount to indepth coverage WP:ORGDEPTH of the organisation as a whole.  Nor do the sources meet the alternative guideline in WP:NGO because the organisation's scope is not national or international.  That leaves the GNG.  What's needed is at least one feature length article independently written and published about the organisation.  It could be that such an article will soon be written looking back over the organisation's history given that its 50th anniversary is this year; but at this juncture one hasn't been sourced.  The news coverage is mainly about new fire stations, which could perhaps be more usefully employed within the article on the place where the fire station is located.  Instead of having one long table covering all the fire stations, add a paragraph under a public services heading e.g. for Fire station no. 12 include some detail in Holiday, Florida — this way the sources found and information presented is not 'wasted' as they might be with a partial merge of the content to the Pasco County article should that be the outcome here.  Rupples ( talk ) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: merge