Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hill Fire Station

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 --Ichiro 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hill Fire Station

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 10:18, 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]

Keep, I think. This is one of the earliest and most important Fire Stations in Australia - certainly in Victoria. Bduke 10:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- FYI, this station is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. No vote. -- Longhair 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda keep. We give train station pages, don't we? -- Eddie 10:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, linked from Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne--SarekOfVulcan 11:08, 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]

Keep Not an average fire station. CalJW 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fire station/high school/etc articles. Now. :) --Tothebarricades 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aaargh, one of my articles on AfD! It's a grand old historic building in Melbourne. I'm planning to include photos of it soon. And it's not "firecruft" - it's local history. It's notable enough for the Enclyclopedia of Melbourne [1]. Cnwb 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This building is listed as a historic place and is important to the history of the area that it is in. Keep and expand. Movementarian 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cnwb, and someone who knows about it can rewrite to explain its notability better. pfctdayelise 14:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for hisotrical signficance. --Rob 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Ambi and FCYTravis. --Daveb 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important. We need more on fire stations and firefighting. -- JJay 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems more important than many fire station and hence is notable amongst fire stations. Evil Eye 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep heritage listed and not insignificant. -- Adz 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fire stations are generally not notable, but this fire station is. Cedars 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important part of Melbourne history. Adriantame 14:31, 4 January 2006 (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.