Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warsaw Fire Brigade (second nomination)

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 of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Fire Brigade

This was deleted after an AfD discussion here, brought to Deletion Review, then undeleted before the DRV discussion was complete. As most of thsoe who favored overturning the previous close also favored relisting this, I am doing so. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete The content is very limited, and no sources are curetnly cited except for the stamp. I do not see any reason in the content presented for this to need a separate article. Any appropriate content can be included in Warsaw, Poland. DES ^(talk) 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no self-respecting encyclopedia would destroy its information about the founding of this fire brigade, and if merged it would lose the interwiki link to the Polish wikipedia. The Warsaw article doesn't need to mention every stamp issued about one of its features. Kappa 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A link can certianly be added to Warsaw that links to the relevant article on the polish wikipedia, if desired. DES ^(talk) 17:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Complex vote elaborated below - currently delete. I'm in agreement with DES. I'm not convinced by the presence of the interwiki link; en.wikipedia is not compelled to arrange information the same way pl.wikipedia does, just as I don't expect pl.wikipedia to arrange their info the same way we do.
  • Delete if no sources are cited for the nontrivial claims in this article, as unverified.
  • Merge if sources are cited and this isn't significantly expanded, as the substantive claims could fit into Warsaw.
  • Keep if someone expands this with non-trivial information. Right now, this claims that Warsaw has a fire brigade and that it was founded on such-and-such date. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a great article, but we do have articles on 17 other fire departments. - SimonP 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, i'll review them. I've already listed one for deletion 0-- in fact it looks like a rather clearer case than this. DES ^(talk) 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I believe the topic is quite interesting and the Polish wiki article (though also tagged for cleanup) explains it a tad better. Anyway, the Brigade seems both notable and encyclopedic, so I don't think we should delete it. Expanding it would be a better option and after the weekend I could do it myself (or at least translate the Polish wiki page). How about that? Halibutt 18:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, if we deleted the article, it's re-creation (even in a much improved form) would be much harder. So, improving it seems a better choice. Halibutt
  • That would be great. I would love to see a proper article on a 170-year-old fire department. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per some points made above. Must be improved. PJM 18:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but please expand). After all, there is an article on the Moose Jaw Fire Department... --Tupsharru 19:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I just nominated that one for deletion -- nice catch. DES ^(talk) 20:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm, verifiable topic, and the article is undergoing improvement. I don't see why we needed to Afd this. Friday (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it is now a good stub, with prospects for growth --- Charles Stewart 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable institution in Warsaw. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The latest cleanup has saved this article. The article is hardly a great one, but it is at least somewhat useful now, and a large city's fire service is a valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A good start. CalJW 14:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. BD2412 T 16:33, 19 November 2005 (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.