Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 New York City house fire

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. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 New York City house fire

2015 New York City house fire (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)

Wikipedia is not a news site, and this event, while tragic, does not warrant an article. Stephen 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless this incident creates something like the Amber Alert system (in this case, a regulation or the like about fire codes), this has no long-lasting impact. This is exactly against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NEVENT, and should be the type of thing Wikinews could be used for. Just because it got a brief spat of international coverage does not mean it is notable for a WP article. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another WP:1E fatality fire. A politician milks minor face-time because kids died. Pax 07:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The background of an ongoing issue involving Shabbat fires, covered by reliable sources, moves this beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Moving it to another name like Shabbat and fire safety where more context could be added might not be a bad idea, though. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. It seems like, as we are dealing with a home-based religious ceremony that involves the use of open flames or heated surfaces that accidents happen all the time; [1] in the US there's 230-odd fires associated with Christmas trees in homes each year, and the only place this is mentioned is inserted among details of Christmas tree. This was a routine home accident, doesn't need an article at all on WP. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AP reports the bodies are heading to Israel. Google News shows the article picked up in 1,900 outlets. This has interest outside just New York. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't looking for a burst of coverage, but enduring coverage, and that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not news. The article can always be recreated if there is persistent coverage over a long period of time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, simply not news.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, even if it wasn't a partial coatrack for any Shabbat (or Passover) fire one can find. Like Masem says, where there's open flame, there's often fire. New York is the mainstream media centre of the world, so it's not surprising that this is recycled in many outlets. In the bigger picture, just another sad fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This bit about it being the deadliest New York fire in seven years, while verifiable, seems all wrong. That article might have a new See Also soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sad event but doesn't deserve an article. And if this does deserve an article, what about this? —Jonny Nixon - (Talk) 11:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly notable based on the sources. Come on, people. Everyking (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability requires enduring coverage, not a burst of coverage. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage has been enduring right up to today. How much longer does it have to endure? Everyking (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • A drive to have people get smoke detectors does not seem like significant enduring coverage. It's also a routine thing that after major fires, fire safety groups push for people to better protect their homes. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So even though it continues to get press coverage, you think it's insignificant and routine because it involves discussion of fire safety? What kind of source do you want to demonstrate "enduring coverage", then? Everyking (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • In terms of the long-term POV, yes. It has had zero impact on the world at large. There is very little that this story affects. A year from now, there is only an exceptional chance this story will be considered important. This is a story that belongs at Wikinews, not an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It seems to me you've moved the goalposts. First, you wanted "enduring coverage". When I observed that coverage is ongoing, you said it was insignificant. When I asked what kind of source I needed to provide, you failed to answer and just said it "has had zero impact on the world at large". So the standard morphed, in that brief exchange, from "enduring coverage" to "impact on the world at large". Everyking (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you're calling the news that local officials have distributed fire safety information because of the fire "enduring", that's not working. We are looking for enduring coverage in the larger world, not just local effects. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, so you will change your vote if I provide a source discussing more than just fire safety, right? Everyking (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this gets deleted I'll merge contents to Sabbath food preparation and Blech -- Aronzak (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Blech#Fire Safety. If this gets nuked, do a redirect -- Aronzak (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I myself have barely heard of this in major news outlets I follow. I didn't even know what the event was until I recognized the victims' religion from a minor news report online. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2015 (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.