Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio: The opaque bare URL sources are impossible for me to decipher.  Many, if not all, towns/ cities have fire stations so it's not clear to me how these ones would be notable.  A BEFORE search only revealed only materials from those fire departments, from Ohio government offices, or historical offices in pay of same so there is no independence from the subject.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ohio .  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not particularly notable.  All towns have fire stations so I don't see any reason why this list should exist.  It also fails NLIST.  There does not seem to be any significant in-depth coverage.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 19:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a drive-by comment with no real work put into it.  You can find an insane amount of information on many of these buildings, and certainly there are news articles about each and every one.  ɱ (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It would be nice if the article's creator had included the title, date and newspaper for each reference accessed through the Columbus Metropolitan Library, but the context suggests that they are mostly newspaper articles from the Columbus Dispatch .   Fire stations often have architectural merit, and I see from the footnotes that at least one station is on the National Register of Historic Places .  In addition to the massive amount of coverage from the Columbus Dispatch over the years, the book A Historical Guidebook to Old Columbus: Finding the Past in the Present in Ohio's Capital City , is already cited as a reference.  The Ben Hayes reference includes two newspaper articles from the Fabulous Short North newspaper.  The first one doesn't deal with fire stations, but the second one is for "Fire! Fire! Fire! Ben Hayes Relates Area Fire House History".  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep it starts out ok, with a picture for each station and a small history.  Then it's simply a "phone book" style listing.  We need some context around why the stations are notable; either historic architecture or the like.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Deletion is not the right reaction.  This AfD process checks for WP:N / WP:GNG , which is established here with dozens of citations.  This article meet's Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.  There are also complaints about the lack of citations and inappropriate format of citations.  I sympathize with that, but also, formatting citations for this kind of content is a poor use of human labor.  Realistically, no human is demanding these citations, because the only info that these citations provide is a claim of the existence of particular fire stations.  Many of the citations here are behind a wall, but they are machine readable or bot verifiable, which is good enough considering that the claim of mere existence is so mundane.  I am going to issue my own take: every city in the world of population over 50,000 should have a Wikipedia article titled "Fire stations in X".  If possible, we should use Wikipedia article writing bots to generate these articles in English, the local language, and a few other languages.  Verifying them with machine-readable sources or primary sources is okay.  The information in these articles should be cross-referenced to Wikimedia Commons for pictures through Wikidata, and then Wikidata should exchange info with OpenStreetMap so that project can give map data to Wikipedia and Wikipedia can provide pics and more info when available to the map.  Beyond fire stations, we should also have articles like this for hospitals, police stations, public parks, and other places which are essential to register for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management .  I am not going to argue that every fire station or hospital is automatically notable, but I think that I am ready to say that we should expect city services are and that list articles like this seem like a scalable pattern for Wikipedia-style documentation of them.  Another opinion: for list articles like this, photos count as sources.  The goal here is to establish that this city has fire stations.  We do not need to go into detail.  Our custom is to treat published text sources as meeting WP:V , even if they do things like poorly describe the architecture or say something like "the mayor was there for the opening".  Sometimes for some claims, like the existence of a thing, a picture is the best reference or source or authority.  These pics are great, and I think we should treat all the entries with a pic as verified.  For the entries with no pic, and with no citation at all, I think having a human simply point to a database or published list is enough verification for what this is.  Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as creator.  Unfortunately nobody has the patience to allow me to finish formatting the references, and nobody has actually directly asked me to.  Also, I do have photographs of most of these places I can upload, but scanning and uploading takes time and effort.  When people don't appreciate the countless hours of work I put in, I have little incentive to put in more effort.  ɱ (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Ɱ : Again, could you not have formatted the references in your sandbox?  Have you read the essay WP:REALPROBLEM ?  Edward-Woodrow :) [ talk ] 22:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't read essays, I don't need to follow them, there are others that say the complete opposite thing, and I don't agree with the one you linked.  Thanks.  Every article is a work in progress; these are good enough for the mainspace.  There is no ref formatting requirement on this project.  ɱ (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] And for those who might not be familiar, NewsBank is a database of reputable newspapers.  All bare URLs are to NewsBank's Columbus Dispatch archives.  I always come back to fix these citations, but it takes time and patience.  And automated tools like ReFill unfortunately can't be used to help.  So it's a slow process.  Asking for attention to any one article would be helpful, rather than an AfD.  ɱ (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Request Please fix the bare URLs, and in the future, please fix them in your sandbox space before adding them to the encyclopedia.  Thank you.  Cullen328 ( talk ) 21:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will try my best, but in the meantime perhaps consider writing a draft addition to a policy or guideline and getting consensus for your opinion above.  ɱ (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It doesn't matter if the citations all went to the local newspaper, per WP:AUD .  You haven't made a case that the subject is notable (that there are fire stations in Columbus) nor does each and every station listed already discussed in a standalone article.  The subject isn't notable.  Pictures don't make the subject notable.  Local coverage doesn't make it notable.  That you started editing in 2009 doesn't make the subject notable.  This isn't merely an argument about citation style.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 21:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Columbus Dispatch is the largest newspaper in Ohio, and covers most of the state.  It's simply not a local paper.  ɱ (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nor does citation style make an article warrant an AfD.  You didn't really provide any real explanation for the sources warranting deletion, nor even bother to provide an assessment of the references.  Which is your whole argument.  ɱ (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article about the paper makes no such claims.  Also, my clear deletion rationale is lack of notability, much as you try to reframe it.  Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I never said the article was any good.  Most of Wikipedia is crap, unfortunately.  And your nomination might as well be a drive-by comment.  There's no effort put in, and no detailed assessment of the notability.  Simply you're confused because you can't access.  Then Ask!  ɱ (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Lack of ability to read a source does not mean (or indicate) a lack of notability.  I'm sorry you have no access.  That does not warrant whole days of effort to be wiped away.  ɱ (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per above.  Flutter Dash 344 ( talk ) 21:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you <3 ɱ (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , extremely well sourced, encyclopedically presented, and the chart has everything going for it per Wikipedia article requirements.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 23:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: It's currently impossible to evaluate the article based on its sources because of the bare urls, which redirect to a login page.  @ Ɱ : Per WP:BURDEN (which is policy, not just an essay), there needs to be sufficient information in the citation to be able to find and verify it: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.  Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)... see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this.  If it takes a minute to properly format a citation, it would take you less than an hour to fix all the citations in the article.  That is something you need to do before putting an article in mainspace, per policy.  Pi.1415926535 ( talk ) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Nevermind the fact that you need a login to even access those bare URLs, are there any sources that are not WP:LOCAL ?  Right now it's a little difficult to determine WP:NLIST given the awful ref formatting.  Frankly I'm leaning towards draftify since the creator above clearly wants to use the main space as their sandbox.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 23:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Show me the requirement that local sources are somehow unacceptable?  And again, The Dispatch is the regional newspaper for Central Ohio, not a local one.  ɱ (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Only asking, no need to get choppy.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 03:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: This AfD grew out of heated arguments first at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Scope creep playing out of their scope?  and subsequently at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Autopatrolled editor removing maintenance templates .  This recent comment by Dominic captures the issues and this AfD in a nutshell.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -  The definitive policy is the Deletion policy ; it lists the allowable 14 reasons for deletion in the ”Reasons for deletion” section.  None of those reasons apply here.  If the nominator doesn’t like Columbus’s many fire stations , just avoid this article.  The article is well-referenced, notable and useful.  The author is to be commended for all the good work put into it.  As noted, there’s more work to be done but that’s true of every article that’s not a featured article.  We have 6.7 million articles.  I’m sure we have at least 100,000 real dogs to get rid of; let’s shift our deletion energies to them and leave this article and its harried author alone.  — A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For all the fretting about article quality, no comments were ever left at Talk:Fire stations in Columbus, Ohio .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 05:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , and let me get this straight.  There's a set of arguments going on all over the place and this AfD, which is obviously targeting an article which passes GNG on the newspaper cites alone, was added to more or less harass a long-time productive editor because they didn't put in a couple dozen ref tags?  How many articles have a couple dozen sources right off the bat?  Then it's obvious that this editor has promised to continue to format the page and edit it the way he has edited many other articles, some to feature status?  Why should we not trust that he'll do what he says?  All of these discussions should be closed and apologies given all around.  Really, this seems to be a case of eating-our-own, and shows that quite a few editors itch for a fight.  I wouldn't be writing this if it wasn't for the fact that all of these discussions combined have MJ considering leaving the project.  Ridiculous use of pile-on, just stop it and apologizes all around for fightin'-words, and close those discussions.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: Article is well illustrated with pics from Commons but, with many bare URLs that leads to a login page and makes mobile app readers uncomfortable, the sources from the Dispatch and others support the notability of the article despite the many sources that cannot be verifiable due to login requirements.  Toadette ( chat ) / ( logs ) 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In addition to the sources in the article there's passages about the early Columbus fire stations on pages 90, 93 & 97 plus 2 images of Engine House no.20 in The Firehouse : An Architectural and Social history by Rebecca Zurier, available through Internet Archive.  This helps partly satisfy WP:NLIST .  There's sufficient sourcing to pass GNG.  Rupples ( talk ) 10:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Helpful list with sufficient sourcing, even if formatting is required.  Consider a move to "List of..."?  --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I make no comment on the AFD but I have replaced the Columbus Metropolitan Library URLs with ones that go direct to Newsbank.  Some of these URLs, in particular those which say open URL should now work for everyone.  I think these also have additional details already.  The other ones, I think all of the bare URLs will still at a minimum require Newsbank access.  I have no idea if they still work or work for everyone with Newsbank access or only for the OP as they look to be search related URLs.  But I see no reason to keep proxy URLs.  Nil Einne ( talk ) 14:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nil, sorry but your link changes should be reverted.  I read your comment on my talk briefly.  I appreciate you trying to help, but unfortunately the non-proxy login doesn't let most library card holders in, and no Columbus library card holders in.  I mentioned this bug to NewsBank months ago.  They replied essentially that they don't care.  And the readers of these Columbus articles are most often people from Central Ohio, so the most useful reference URL is one they can access.  ɱ (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OR, actually, I found a way a few months back to include both URL forms.  Which allows more access to everyone.  Just takes more time to do.  ɱ (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well that doesn't apply to the open URL links since these can be access by anyone even without library access.  But more importantly, if it's difficult for Columbus Metropolitan Library holders to use the direct URLs, that's unfortunate.  But links to Newsbank are infinitely preferable to links to some libraries proxy.  Articles should not be designed for ease of access of one particular population at the expense of the rest of the world.  And you cannot assume that even people from Central Ohio will have access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library anyway.  There are various ways people with access to Newsbank via the Columbus Metropolitan Library can access those URLs which are sort of beyond the scope of this discussion (e.g. it's likely they will work from an actual library computer, or they could ask a librarian for help or just manually replace the URL if they know what they're doing).  But for good reasons we ultimately considered it the responsibility of readers to obtain access when we've provided sufficient information for them to do so.  The URLs still aren't that but non proxy URLs are more that than proxy ones are.  (I'm sure there must be a discussion about this somewhere since these sort of library proxies are very common and have been for many years.)  P.S. If you want to revert me while you fix these URLs, go ahead provided you're going to fix them within a week or so.  Note if my fix had made it more difficult for you to access these URLs or see what they are, consider this an illustration of why everyone else is so frustrated when you leave these confusing URLs.  P.P.S. I don't want to get into this too much here but I'd also note you can't defend these as links to Newsbank implying anyone with access to Newsbank can use them, while simultaneously saying you actually want them to be links to the Columbus Metropolitan Library proxy used for Newsbank access (so only people with that particular library have access).  Nil Einne ( talk ) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nil, please be concise with your responses!  You're restating yourself, and I understand your position.  Again, anyone in Ohio can apply for a free library card.  These CML URLs are accessible to anyone, statewide.  Both URLs should be provided, but the CML URL is actually more useful to the readership of these niche topics.  ɱ (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is the only article on the entire site that is a list of fire stations in the city.  As a result of the conflict around this and the sources I won't be voting, but it does seem like it's up there with Bus Routes in City in terms of not meeting NLIST, even though there are notable fire stations that already have articles.  I'm mostly commenting if someone wants to revisit this AfD in awhile.  SportingFlyer T · C 21:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify or delete .  We have inscrutable references that are almost certainly local coverage anyway.  Then we have patchy coverage of individual firehouses, which do not satisfy NLIST.  Where are the requisite multiple SIRS sources, including at least one regional one, that show the topic as a whole is notable?  This list additionally fails INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 22:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – While every small town in the U.S. doesn't need a comprehensive list of fire stations, a major city will have plentiful coverage (both in newspapers and perhaps even in books and other materials).  Some stations are also notable enough for their own articles, either due to historic merit, a heritage designation, or significant coverage on its own.  It sets a horrible precedent to toss out an article simply because it is sourced to a local-to-the-subject but still major regional daily newspaper.  What on earth drove everyone to this end?  Sounder Bruce 03:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Columbus Division of Fire .  That article is basically a stub, and can easily cover this content.  If that article was becoming too large to read, I'd support breaking this out as a seperate article, but in it's current state, no reason to have 2 related articles.  No issues with sourcing and find the arguments made regarding them silly.  Dave ( talk ) 04:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consensus is trending towards keep, but think a merge is the best possible outcome here.  There's no need for two stand-alone articles - again, this is the only list of fire stations in city X on the entire site - while we wouldn't lose any of the information.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I think this is the kind of list that people come to Wikipedia to find (and I generally loathe list articles).  I think it needs a lot of work (which the editor is providing), but is genuinely encyclopaedic.  First, I think this AfD should have been procedurally closed under WP:BEFORE C4 at the very least, with good reasons also in B2, C2 (synonymous to WP:RUSH ), C3 and D4.  Architectural RSs alone appear to give us a reasonable assumption that additional RSs exist and the article may be ripe for improvement, not deletion.  That said, the article should not have been started in mainspace but in draft.  I think, though, that the article is more than strong enough now to stand on its own while being improved.  I really do understand the nom's good-faith NLIST and GNG arguments, but I don't completely agree with them.  The overall subject has (limited but existant) notability for architectural and historical reasons.  The fact that a significant number of list items have noncontroversial articles is not in itself definitive, but it is indicative of notability as well.  I think the arguments over sourcing and source-formatting are a distraction.  The sources presented are reliable and non-primary (a news article that includes or summarises historical info is generally considered secondary).  For a regional subject, a regional source is reasonable and expected, and the coverage does not seem passing or trivial.  Lastly, it's an article that actually passes WP:SELCRIT which is a rare pearl in list AfD discussions.  Overall, I think the article improves Wikipedia and should remain in mainspace.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 14:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bickering aside, the topic of fire stations in a particular city clearly will have enduring coverage in local newspapers over time.  Merge discussion, if any, can be held on talk page, as there is no policy-based reason to enforce one as an AfD outcome.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for what has already been said well above.  HenryMP02 ( talk ) 20:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm Central Ohio based and will convert the bare urls.  9H48F ( talk ) 09:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its not just this article that needs worked on.  There is dozens and potentially and potentially more than 100 need the bare search urls converted into a real references.  scope_creep Talk 11:34, 4 September 2023 (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: keep