Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockland Paramedic Services
- 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rockland Paramedic Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Very limited external, reliable sources on the topic, even in the local press. Even if sources are found, I'm not sure if it's sufficient to be encyclopaedic. The author's comments here raise issues of conflict of interest. Travellingcari (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Altough it does need Citations, it seems as though this Article shouldn't be to difficult to find them for, even if they are in local libraries/hard copies only... etc. At this point I dont feel a COI problem exists, as looks like the Article Creator has done a good job of keeping the Article Neutral in tone. Article has been added to 2 WikiProjects to get relevent Editors attentions. Article Cleanup is suggested. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local ambulance corps, rescue services, fire departments, etc etc are not notable unless they have been engaged in particularly notable events. There are sue to be locval sources--but they are sure to be trivial. The contents of the article indicate the triviality: a list of which unit responds to which town, and the (perfectly standard) equipment on the vehicles. Why is this sort of thing included? because that's all that is available. They have a web site for this sort of material. No onewould look for it in an encyclopedia. 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)
- Delete, per DGG above. Any sources you can find are likely to be trivial, unless this particuar local service has been involved in notable events, which does not seem to be the case here. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Possibly worth a mention in the article on Rockland County but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2008 (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.