Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hill Fire Station: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 25: Line 25:
*'''Keep''' heritage listed and not insignificant. -- [[User:Adz|Adz]] 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' heritage listed and not insignificant. -- [[User:Adz|Adz]] 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' fire stations are generally not notable, but this fire station is. [[User:Cedars|Cedars]] 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' fire stations are generally not notable, but this fire station is. [[User:Cedars|Cedars]] 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' important part of Melbourne history. [[User:Adriantame|Adriantame]] 14:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:31, 4 January 2006

Wait wait... don't tell me! Fire stations getting articles now? Stop the madness. Yeah, it's... you guessed it... Firecruft. FCYTravis 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep from the article contents this building also has a mueseum in it. Sounds notable enough then. novacatz 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The museum mentioned in the article could be notable, but that would involve writing a completely new article at a new title. Ambi 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to write an article on the museum, I have no objection - fire museums are probably notable. But a fire station that happens to have a museum next door... isn't. This is how precedents get set, and I really don't think Wikipedia needs articles on every fire station in the world. FCYTravis 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the fact that the building's historic, not that it's a fire station, per se. Historic buildings are encyclopedic, plain ol' fire stations are not. So I can't see how it's setting a precedence. Cnwb 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does this set a precedent for a separate article on every single one of the 79,000 places and 1.2 million buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the 1,100 California State Historic Landmark plaques, etc.? FCYTravis 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in here does it say 1.2 million? I see 79,000 as the overall total, with buildings being a subset of that. --Rob 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]