Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Mail Processing Plant

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. --Core desat 06:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Mail Processing Plant

This place is extremely non-notable. I really doubt someone from Australia, for example, would want info on this plant. Delete GreenJoe 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forget Australia, I doubt anyone from Canada needs info on this plant. Resolute 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No inherent notability for post offices! Corpx 16:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a mail processing plant, like the other 20 or so in Canada. Existing in southern Ontario does not make it more notable. --Charlene 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a mail processing plant in southern Ontario does not make anything more notable. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about a Canada Post processing plant that doesn't link to Canada Post? Strange. It is less than 3 weeks old but was created by a London postal worker and none of the other 20 major postal stations currently have their own article. To change my vote to keep, it would have to demonstrate with sources why the public or people with passing interest in postal systems would know/care about this (heritage building, site of notable strike action, major regional employer, etc). My 'So what? Who care? Prove it" test. Canuckle 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re comments above: notability is not established by something being well-known, but by it having been the subject of multiple, independent articles by reliable sources. Which incidentally this article fails... hence delete ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a userfy. Iknowyourider (t c) 19:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WTF== Header disabled because it messed up the formatting of the entire AFD Corpx 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you are all idiots. If there is no other Postal palnt in Canada with its own article, DUH ya think maybe a few suggestions for improving or adding material would boost the F'n ego of a paltry postal worker, and hey, it wasn't about notability as such, it was just an article that was going to be improved upon and edited as I got more information. I was in the process of gathering information on all the postal outlets to increase the knowledge of the Canada Post main article so take your finger out of your misguided holier than thou Butt and just say, "here's some more information that makes a major article complete" Why don't you go over to Commons and delete the boring Canada Post Tags galleries I am putting up while you are at it, idiots. WTF WayneRay 18:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Hey, don't "go postal" on us Mandsford 02:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nominated for deletion based on the lack of notability from independent sources. It has nothing to do with any of the things you just said. Corpx 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be that notable, it's an explination of a Mail Plant that is one of London's larger employers, they dont work at the post office so why should they care if there is more information. How about sayiong here are some tips on improving the article instead of just dumping on it. That's all the material I could find and It is in chronological order and that's the plant, bare bones. I have been there for 15 years and it's important to us at work. Thanks for the encouragement (right) WayneRay 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

It has to be that notable because that's what Wikipedia's policy WP:NOTE says. --Charlene 21:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One tip may be to consider changing the article's focus from a building to the history of the service in the area, with sources. Another is to keep a civil tone when requesting collaboration and comment. Canuckle 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an employee-of-the-month award and there isn't any notability here no matter how dedicated the staff may be. If there is a desire for an ego-boost there are many other free webhosts that are not encyclopedias. --Dhartung | Talk 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. —Canuckle 23:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable plant.--JForget 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep I've considered the author's comments, and I conclude that this is intended as more than just an article about a local post office, perhaps with a description of policy and operations. Part of the reaction by the people posting is that the article is titled about one ___location, and the postmasters are listed. I stand by the statement that we can't open the door for articles about every post office, nor every traffic accident (reference to 2007 French Alps coach crash). Perhaps this one can be moved to the author's User Page and retooled. In addition, I say forgive the outburst... if you're new to AfD, it can be a rude surprise. If you've been in AfD awhile, you recognize that tensions can run high. Mandsford 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; mail sorting plants are not notable. Bearcat 07:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser WayneRay, please see WP:N for a clarification on the policy regarding notaility.Tomj 23:21, 14 July 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.