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 some, keep others. There seem to be consensus to delete Unity Area Ambulance, and Harley Street Ambulance Service. Mersey Ambulance Service, Staffordshire Ambulance Service and Surrey Ambulance Service are keeps. Schaefer Ambulance Service was not commented on much, so that is no consensus. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Area Ambulance[edit]

Unity Area Ambulance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable local and regional ambulance companies Dicklyon 02:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles that all have the same non-notability problem:

Harley Street Ambulance Service

Mersey Ambulance Service

Staffordshire Ambulance Service

Schaefer Ambulance Service

Surrey Ambulance Service

• Delete all 6; before nominating these for deletion, I discussed Unity Area Ambulance with its author at User talk:Eric outdoors#Unity Area Ambulance and tried to get him to provide evidence of notability. He suggested that the rest of these are equally non-notable, and I looked and agreed. Dicklyon 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Harley Street Ambulance Service and Unity Area Ambulance; failure of WP:ORG. The rest need to be unbundled and considered separately. MER-C 02:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say what you'd be looking at in the others? I can't see where any of them make any claim to notability; the only links are their own sites. Dicklyon 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search on all of them and not all of them are open and shut non-notable. MER-C 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mersey, Staffordshire and Surrey. County ambulance services are as notable as county police forces or education departments. Abstain on the American ones as I don't know enough about their scope. - fchd 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to add the evidence of notability? Or are you saying we should be deleting non-notable police and education departments as well? Dicklyon 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. I think that the applicable guideline here is WP:CORP. These companies certainly don't meet either of major criteria found therein. A Train ^{take the} 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• After examining the recent changes to some of these articles, I'm quite sure that we've got apples and oranges together here. This is the problem with buffet-style AfDs like this. I would suggest to the nom that this AfD be withdrawn and new AfDs be initiated for the individual articles that s/he still feels are problematic. A Train ^{take the} 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Harley Street Ambulance Service - this is a non-notable private company that fails WP:CORP. Keep - the pages on the Mersey, Staffordshire and Surrey county ambulance services as they are referring to notable regional publicly funded organisations in the UK and do meet WP:ORG. Although they are not national they are large regional bodies and there will be lots of 3rd party sources available in local, regional and national newspapers. So they should be kept and developed as per all the pages that link from List of ambulance services in the United Kingdom - although some pages will need to be merged/redirected etc. as the ambulance service has recently been reorganised. Can't comment on Schaefer Ambulance Service or Unity Area Ambulance as these are out of my area of expertise. Madmedea 22:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to Staffordshire Ambulance Service to show the kind of coverage these organisations get in the UK - in national and local media. This were just a few I found from the 31,000 google hits. Other UK services may have less because they've only been in existence in their current form since last July - but that doesn't make them less notable. Madmedea 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please can we unbundle the UK NHS ones from this AfD. If someone wants to nominate them separately then that's fine because I can provide plenty of non-trival 3rd party references for all of them in a discussion if it comes to that. But they should not be considered alongside services of a very different nature. Madmedea 10:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I propose to keep the article on Unity Area Ambulance as Unity Area Ambulance is a very notable place. The proposer of this deletion suggested that the author could not provide reasons for notablilty. That was a 100% lie! Note the Author's Discussion Page for reasons why the article is notable. Eric 01:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I already linked our discussion in my comments above, so that people would know what you were able to find as evidence of notability. Please don't resort to personal attacks (calling my statement a lie is a personal attack). Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are proposing to delete these Ambulance articles then you better delete the other hundreds on Wikipedia:

• Ambulance Services]
• Air Ambulance Services
• NHS Ambulance Services
• Ambulance Services in the UK
• The list goes on and on and on and on

Eric 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably see what we decide with the present list before expanding the scope of the AfD. Dicklyon 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then when you get done destroying the hundreds of articles on Ambulance services, then you should go and propose deletion for all the police departments, and then schools, and pretty soon we will have all of Wikipedia tore down. Eric 03:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I realize you haven't been at wikipedia for long, but you have a strange idea of how it works. I know you have put a lot of effort into removing spam links, and that's part of what it takes to keep wikipedia on an improvement trajectory. Removing unsuitable articles is another part. I have no intention of dedicating a lot of effort to it, but if I did, I might follow up your suggestion, since I agree that most such departments and organizations are in fact not notable according to wikipedia criteria. But the large number of articles presently escaping scrutiny should not in any way influence the action on these that are currently nominated AfD. Dicklyon 03:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all then submit as seperate debates where needed. Combining Unity (3 vehicles and 3 employees) and Mersey (vehicles in the hundreds, employees in the thousands) into one debate is unworkable. Nuttah68 13:35, 3 February 2007 (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.