Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Shanghai fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 SNOW KEEP This article is obviously going to be kept. We do not engage in needless process. Jehochman Talk 20:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Shanghai fire

[edit]
2010 Shanghai fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see how this is a notable event in any sense of the word. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news archive, and this is purely news. The fact that it has had international coverage is great and all, but in the end, it is simply not encyclopedic material. In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all, and thus it has no enduring notability at all. This was just yet another fire that for some reason caught the attention of today's media. That last half does not contribute anything to notability (and our policies only mention that it might indicate notability, not that it does). Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Are there any specific policies on the notability of disasters? I'm fairly certain that it's pretty common practice to keep articles on catastrophes of this scale. That's 50+ deaths in on incident. Anyway, there's tones of articles of accidents of a similar nature, see CATEGORY:2010 fires for just a few. In that light, not only do I vote Keep, but I propose that this AfD be dropped as per WP:SNOW.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disasters? It's a fire. I looked at the category; surely you can agree with me when I argue that there's a little bit of a difference between a power plant explosion or a church burning and an apartment fire. One of them happens every day, one of them does not. What the media happens to decide is relevant is not only something a coin flip might be able to tell you, but also something that should not impact what Wikipedia is. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See Category:2010 fires. eg. 2010 Connecticut power plant explosion: 5 dead, 27 injured; 2010 Shanghai fire: at least 53 dead, at least 100 injured so far. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I simply cannot advocate any argument for keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In fact, I am fully aware of the fact that this is a much bigger issue than this one article (at least in my mind), but I can't come here with 200 pages to delete. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all" seems to meet WP:BIAS and WP:CRYSTAL. Try to search "上海大火" -wikipedia. You're not sure whether Chinese and Hongkongese media will remember it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Deletion of articles, my "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" may be valid because it can be demonstrated in the same way as I might demonstrate justification for the article's creation. It'd be WP:BIAS and not fair if deleted. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just as much crystal-balling to say that "In a few months this is not going to be remembered at all" as it is to say that it will be remembered. I'd argue for the latter, however, based on the observation that skyscraper fires get written about more than most fires, in large part because of the difficulty in fighting them and in rescuing people from them. [1]. The lessons learned over the years from this type of fire have been part of the evolution of fire prevention and firefighting. Mandsford 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no specific WP guidelines on what constitutes a "disaster" in the encyclopedic sense, such as a minimum death toll, the article should remain along with the many other similar articles on incidents of relatively minor note.--Tbmurray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Fires of this scale with such a high death toll is rare. I'm also asking for a speedy decsion on this, since it has consensus for going on ITN at the main page. --Kslotte (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also nominate that this be closed and the AfD tag be removed immediately. Not one editor has supported deletion.WP:SNOW clearly applies here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this has become a pile-on of "keep" !votes. There is no other way that this can go besides keep as long as one is going based on consensus. I think we can safely put this AFD out of its misery. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford. Fires of this type have staying power of interest beyond merely news. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per various of the above. I'm hearing potentially 60+ deaths; this is a large-scale disaster, and as such has interest merely beyond the ephemeral. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was considered notable enough for the front page. So its fairly clearly notable enough for an article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that rationale. IT was only "considered notable enough for the front page" by two people and an administrator who decided not to wait for consensus before posting on ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. There is consensus to post on ITN. I agree with someone said at WP:ITN/C#Shanghai_fire, respecting the intention of WP:SK#Procedural closure, "considered notable enough for the front page" means "considered notable enough to be an article, at least before they've cycled off the Main Page". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as has been established above, this event is notable and has significant impact in China. Let's not turn this into another argument about systemic bias, please. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Fires and other incidents involving public buildings in China resulting in more than 50 deaths are quite uncommon, and do not occur every year, yet an image for this article would be helpful. For example, though not a fire, the collapse of a building in Shijiazhuang last year claimed 17 lives. The fire in Shanghai occurred in a very high-population density residential metropolitan area in China's largest city, comparable to the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire last year which killed one person yet has quite an extensive article. ~AH1(TCU) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It is very rare that a fire results in this much damage and so many deaths; it is also prompting Chinese authorities to implement stricter fire safety regulations. This is a significant event, much more than NOTNEWS-level, and has received enough coverage to justify an article. It is not fair to say this fire will be forgotten in a few months because, well, it has not yet been a few months. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a significant if not historic event, also 53+ people are dead let alone this was a rare fire that occurred in a skyscraper. You remove this article and this event will be forgotten. I also hate how and event in a second or third world country killing this many people is less important than an event killing a few or no people in Western Countries! How is it the Connecticut Power plant explosion should be able to have an article when it had 5 death compared to 53 deaths in this fire! Strongly reconsider this proposed deletion. --Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:02pm, 16 November 2010 (US central standard time)
  • Keep. Major disaster. Compare this item with the minor news item being debated at WP:Articles for deletion/Datalink Computer Services incident. Abductive (reasoning) 06:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fires of a deadly nature which killed many people, in this case should be recorded. It is notable enough for the world's media to put the spotlight on it otherwise they would not have reported it. The significance of this incident is not the just fire itself but the cause, alleged improper conduct by workers or poor occupational health and safety. checked out 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion. The casualties were 8 and this incident had 53+. So this should be included. Takamaxa (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per not notable enough for an encyclopaedia. Wikinews would be better. Per Takamaxa it has got attention in the global media hence the case being that wikinews is perfect for it. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to include it (and god knows that should go too)(Lihaas (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Plz read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point." But in WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, I found an example not encouraged and comparable to the reason of our AfD here: "This celeb is just a flash in the pan, and nobody will remember her in a week/month/year." --Tomchen1989 (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If I may use the nominator's wording, I fail to see how this is a non-notable event in any sense of the word. ----Divebomb is not British 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its rare that I disagree with WP:NOTNEWS Arguments, but it meets the criteria of WP:NEWSEVENT in my book. I also have a strong feeling that had this been a 28 floor building in downtown Chicago, New York City or LA We would not being having this discussion The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally with you on that. Mandsford 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then they probably would say: "No, you can't mention the other articles, you go against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I can't come here with 200 pages to delete. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason..." It's quite funny. A comparison to other articles of the same kind should be very reasonable here. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep or Speedy keep: This article was on WP:ITN. User:Shirik as an admin pulled it from ITN and started the AfD. Here I request a WP:SNOW Keep, or a WP:Speedy keep due to the lack of discussion at WP:Main Page/Errors which goes against WP:SK#Applicability: "5. The article is currently linked from the Main Page. In such a case, please use Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors to have the link removed before nominating the article." then re-add it to the ITN. It is quite annoying and a waste of time for the AfD. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2010_Shanghai_fire&oldid=1087640154"