| Revision as of 04:06, 21 April 2015 editZackmann08 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers331,075 edits →Croydon Fire Company← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:26, 21 April 2015 edit undoSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Croydon Fire Company: fwiwNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *'''Comment''' I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. is effectively dead; is for #11 and shows , which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: , and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: . Stories like are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg and - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - ] (]) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. is effectively dead; is for #11 and shows , which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: , and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: . Stories like are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg and - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - ] (]) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment:''' {{ping|Sitush}} yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --] (]) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | :*'''Comment:''' {{ping|Sitush}} yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --] (]) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::*FWIW, I've just done a search of JSTOR, Muse and various other paywalled academic resources. I didn't expect to find anything and, well, there was nothing. Epeefleche has basically come up with what I've found on Google, which is mostly listings in various types of directory and passing mentions in news stories when the CFC was in attendance at incidents, most of which seem to be run-of-the-mill work for a outfit of their type. I do not have access to newspapers.com - has anyone trawled that? What we're looking for is background stories that elaborate on the history, on the changes in equipment and senior personnel etc. - ] (]) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See , and , and . But I would delete all uncited material. ] (]) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | *'''Comment'''. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See , and , and . But I would delete all uncited material. ] (]) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :* {{ping|Epeefleche}} that would be all of it... :-p --] (]) 04:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | :* {{ping|Epeefleche}} that would be all of it... :-p --] (]) 04:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:26, 21 April 2015
Croydon Fire Company
- Croydon Fire Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references at all, mass de-PROD-ding –Be..anyone (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - No references, department has no website and am unable to find any sources. Very poor rational for keeping the article as is. --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have gotten very confused with this one, having looked at it when the original PROD was removed. This potential official site is effectively dead; this sort-of official Facebook page is for #11 and shows this website, which I cannot make head nor tail of - it has either been hacked or they've got a truly awful webmaster. I can see loads of fluffy things of dubious merit, eg: this one, and some that do at least make me think that the whole thing is not in fact an elaborate hoax, eg: this one. Stories like this are more the sort of thing that I was expecting to find in volume, including in online versions of print media but, really, they are not many around. I'm wondering whether there is enough - eg here and here - to make a go of the thing or whether it really is a lost cause. My gut says the information must be out there somewhere, given the alleged age of the company and its public role. So, I am on the fence at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: @Sitush: yea I just see no reason to keep the page. Nothing on it is of any value. There are no sources. Nothing of any substance. If someone comes along later and remakes the page with real sources, awesome. But right now its got pages linking to it and it just has useless info on it. Doesn't seem like a good use. (IMHO) --Zackmann08 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, I've just done a search of JSTOR, Muse and various other paywalled academic resources. I didn't expect to find anything and, well, there was nothing. Epeefleche has basically come up with what I've found on Google, which is mostly listings in various types of directory and passing mentions in news stories when the CFC was in attendance at incidents, most of which seem to be run-of-the-mill work for a outfit of their type. I do not have access to newspapers.com - has anyone trawled that? What we're looking for is background stories that elaborate on the history, on the changes in equipment and senior personnel etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. There are a number of references to it, by various derivations of its name. See here, and here, and here. But I would delete all uncited material. Epeefleche (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Epeefleche: that would be all of it... :-p --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)