Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikes 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 keep. Any merge / redirect actions can occur by ordinary editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikes Fire

[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)

There were 58,083 wildfires in the U.S. in 2018. The Ikes Fire and the fires below were not notable in any way. In most cases, no structures were destroyed, no one was injured, and the fires only received local news coverage. Many pages were never updated or expanded, and some of them, like the Reef Fire, still say they are "currently burning" even though it happened more than 2 years ago. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Ikes Fire, I am also nominating the following pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Between the deletion of the sentence with "still burning" in it and deleting the article, the former is more useful. The first six articles are less than 2 megs; most of the rest are over 2 megs and as much as 4. Misrepresentation of this sort, and by deleting huge swathes of article content before nomination, is all too common and should be addressed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how some of them being slightly longer makes them notable, or how that is misrepresentation? I only nominated articles which are clearly not notable. None of them had serious injuries, fatalities, major damage, or significant news coverage. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think we should just delete all of these. Perhaps some individual pages should be redirected or deleted, but not as a group. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm making my vote procedural keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also do not see the need to mass delete this content. We are a community edited encyclopedia. Some of our editors do not have the interest to sustain their efforts. I'd rather see the complaining editor take the time it took to create this AfD, to bring these articles up to snuff. I left the examples as they were because they are now examples in this discussion. While I was researching the Maria Fire, I discovered there is a checkerboard of wildfire information dating back into the 1920's here in California. Maybe it even goes deeper but I found such dates. Maybe nobody has applied sufficient effort and knowledge to this, but as climate change comes to affect our surroundings, more and more of this documentation can be compiled through the kind of open source accumulation of information that wikipedia is, to help make some coherence to what is now just terror. FIRE! Why don't we just delete all articles about places without zip codes? They're small and so they must be insignificant. Or they are part of the patchwork of information necessary to complete the picture. Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make my vote KEEP Trackinfo (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a damned newspaper (or an undamned one). Local coverage only, a grand total of three injuries, little damage and only scattered evacuations in the entire bunch. If all of these were the results of one giant fire, it still wouldn't merit an article, much less dozens. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Content is merely procedural news of the extent burned and fails WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Our ATD is that these can be discussed at 2015 California wildfires, 2018 Oregon wildfires, etc. The Notes column of the tables in these can certainly handle the small amount of content here. Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a mass AfD of 35 articles (if I counted right) all at the same time is the best way to handle this. This has the potential to be a giant mess by bundling this all together like this. Hog Farm (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a mess if you make it one. I see no reason why, if someone can mass-produce one-line stubs – often lazily cited to nothing but the incident database (almost all of these were created by two users) – without discussion at all, we can't have a single discussion to merge them. It's a much bigger mess and waste of people's time to have to vote on Topock Fire, Owens River Fire, Sage Fire, etc. individually. If you have a suggestion how to divide these go ahead, but I reject the idea that nominations cannot be bundled and they should be procedurally closed. Give an automatic relisting, and admins don't have to close them all the same way if people have selective concerns/improvements. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally would think that a Merge to the various applicable "fires in X state for 20XX" is the right way to go about this, but I personally think that's a lot easier to discuss if the fires are grouped by applicable merge target. Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - While there are a lot of nominated articles, they are all stubs that will never be anything more than stubs (unless Jimmy Hoffa's body is discovered as a result), following the general patern of a location, a date, the number of acres burned, and status. These are all routine fires, with little resulting damage/disruption, so why should we repackage them in lists? These are even less consequential than say List of multi-vehicle collisions in California in 2019. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into lists. Could be by state or date. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above, or if you are an admin who absolutely must do something, redirect each to a relevant location. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2019 (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.