Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Florida wildfires

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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Florida wildfires

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per IP request: I am nominating this article for deletion because a WP:BEFORE search found exactly one source - [1], not enough to meet GNG and therefore non-notable. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) submitted on behalf of stated IP by UtherSRG (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Lists, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the Miami Herald in April talking about the many fires to date and prospects for the rest of the year. That would seem to count as a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources still is not enough. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you PROD this initially with WP:PERMASTUB which I don't agree with because the essay states that stubs are fine to have even if they never expand. – The Grid (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third, a predictive one about the upcoming year posted by Fox Weather at the end of 2022. That makes three. Does that meet your secret magic number? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
while 3 sources describing the impacts is enough, that source does not provide any notability for the topic since it’s before any wildfires. Still not meeting GNG.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an odd requirement to stick on it. We have articles on elections that have not yet occurred, Olympics that are merely planned. Predictive sources focused on a topic seem indeed relevant to notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Based on WP:NEXIST rational. Similar situation to 1999 Aïn Témouchent earthquake, which passed AfD with 2 sentences and no in-line references under NEXIST (Has since been improved - version that passed AfD). That’s not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather showing a confirmation that NEXIST is a 100% valid argument. Here are sources related to this article based on a single google search:

So, sources exist for this article, despite the article not being in good condition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources listed on this page to meet WP:GNG. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 of those are for only the Sandy Fire, so the scope could be refocused.166.198.251.71 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sandy fire may (or may not) be deserving its own page, but we have multiple reliable sources looking at the year as a whole, so that deserves a page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, we do seem to be at that magic number of 3, so there might be enough notability to keep.--166.198.251.71 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and expand. News coverage is more than sufficient to establish notability. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. There is definitely significant coverage on the fires. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so notable like many other recent wildfires. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have expanded the article with the sources presented by WeatherWriter above, plus more sources found in a thorough BEFORE search. The article satisfies notability guidelines, more expansion to come soon. But as it stands now, the article meets GNG. ~ Tails Wx 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources satisfied GNG? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, due to the existence of sources that demonstrate notability. As mentioned by others, notability is not derived from the article’s quality. Zsinj^Talk 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; AFD requested by IP sock of banned user Andrew5. wizzito | say hello! 03:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: AfD requested by IP of banned sock. Let'srun (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An AfD nominated by a banned sock is procedurally identical to a withdrawn nomination. Once there is any other support for deletion, the AfD can no longer be procedurally speedy-kept. As much as I'd like to see the article kept, if your only argument is that it was nominated by a sock, your !vote carries little weight. Owen× ☎ 11:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy keep can't progress because one user voted for deletion (according to WP:CLOSE)? – The Grid (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but a procedural speedy keep due to an improper or withdrawn nomination cannot progress once there is any support for deletion, per WP:WDAFD: If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep. That lone "Delete" !vote by an editor in good standing will likely ultimately lose to the consensus, but once there, we cannot sweep it under the rug just because the nominator was disqualified. At this point, the AfD must be allowed to run its course. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': There's no reason for such a list to be deleted, other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Even if the majority of these fire aren't as notable, the list should be acceptable. If we delete this, we may as well delete all lists of disasters, simply because they aren't major disasters. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2023 (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.