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 keep. There is sufficient consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Rescue Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a fire department for a city of less than 200,000. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; few secondary sources to support notability. The article cites self-published sources for most of its content, as well as trivial mentions in local newspapers. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - What a joke this article even existed in the first place. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How is the article "a joke?" You may want to provide an actual qualifiable deletion rationale; the one you provided is not guideline- or policy-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Bomberswarm2 - Do you have a real rationale as to why the article should be deleted? I'm sure this vote will be overlooked by any passing administrator as simply voting either just to vote or because of a conflict of interest. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to you my conflict of interest is ploicitcs, so how does this have any relevance to anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bomberswarm2 - I'm not talking about your conflict of interest that I brought to the noticeboard, I don't even think you have a COI in this area, I'm just saying it could appear to be a COI and this vote will most likely be overlooked nonetheless if you don't include a rationale. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is information on the subject and it can become a better article with more sources. The information is out there but it just needs to be placed in the article. There are many mentions of this organization but being a cities fire department will of course lead to it only being mentioned in local newspapers unless it is the subject of some large event. This is true of most city government fire departments but this article has useful information for people but it just needs some attention to improve it. PartColumbia (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I say this should be kept, there is information on the subject and it can become a better article with more sources. If this was a private company, then yes i would say delete it. But we are talking about a local fire department. It is mentioned in the media, but being a cities fire department will, of course, lead to it only being mentioned in local newspapers, unless it is the subject of some large event; this is true of most city government fire departments. This article has useful information and it is being updated and added to. This article is useful for people, it just needs some attention to improve it. PartColumbia (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PartColumbia: You can only vote once. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PartColumbia - Striking this dual vote. You can only vote once. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article can be improved. Arguing for deletion because it is "a fire department for a city of less than 200,000" seems pretty misguided: it is a city fire department, period. The size of the city is irrelevant. I also believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is being wrongly applied in this instance. Keri (t · c) 21:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge per WP:ATD-M to Richmond, British Columbia § Emergency services, which only has passing mentions. This will improve the merge target article. Source coverage is local in nature, and there may not be enough to qualify a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 5 March 2017 (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.