Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schaefer Ambulance Service (3rd 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 was delete. The argument that we should redirect this doesn't really make any sense if the target article. If somebody types in these words and finds themselves at the main article on Los Angeles all that is going to do is confuse them. Those arguing to redirect apparently agree that the subject does not merit an article, and so deletion is the only remaining option. Note that the sock votes, including the nomination, were not considered when making this determination. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schaefer Ambulance Service

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not notable; abusive Splitjack (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Splitjack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No notable distinction other than to invite criticism from a disgrunted party. Ugly. Needs to go away. They shouldn't advertise here.

*Delete This is plain company information with no distinction. Contains elements of self-promotion and advertising. Many attempts to include and delete critical POV material. Doubtful and questionable references. Astrometre (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Astrometre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 01:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ (!voted below), but it's worth noting that fairly significant amounts of sourced content were removed from the article recently, some of which I've now added back in. Possible sources seem to be plentiful, but mostly behind paywalls and/or fairly brief mentions. Anybody got an LA Times subscription to check some of these out? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Self promotion, no distinction, bad links.Wihnoe8033 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Wihnoe8033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I currently cannot find a Cite ... but it seems to me, they had their ambulances in the old Emergency! show. Right area, right era, this might (if cited) make them WP:Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - not notable, not interesting, undeserving. Ptenski 18:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Ptenski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- WP:JNN, WP:NOTINTERESTING, WP:BELONG, do you have a deletion argument that doesn't come right out of WP:ATA? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak procedural keep - Although notability seems to be decidedly questionable, this nomination smells, and badly, given the spate of SPAs and the fact the nominator itself is an SPA - along with the nominator's statements. "No notable distinction other than to invite criticism from a disgrunted party." Er, what? Yes, the article was attacked, but vandalism isn't a reason to delete. "Ugly"? - AfD is not for cleanup. "Needs to go away"? Why? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: SPI has confirmed that the SPAs, including the nominator are socks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regardless of the problems of the various problematic accounts mentioned above, this does not appear to have the coverage that is required for Wikipedia articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CORP. No claim to notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per past outcomes, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redir - yeah, I believe that is the right option. That way, if a cite is found, the info remains in History and is not lost for good. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete I do not see how we can redirect--there is no specific community to redirect to, DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their Headquarters & Corporate Office's are located in Los Angeles California, redir it there. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 09:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like a sensible compromise here, since we can't verify that the possible sources are enough to meet WP:GNG but the search term seems reasonable. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (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.