Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuwang Club 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 no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wuwang Club fire

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

I believe this article fails both the depth and duration requirements set out in WP:EVENT. It also has had no discernible lasting effect on anything else, from what I gather. Yes, I know it probably passes the GNG, but WP:EVENT is more stringent than that. From Google, the only news sources I can find date to September 2008, failing the duration requirement. Of those sources, they appear to be superficial reporting, without a serious analysis, which fails the depth requirement. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support I did some searching as well. This primary value of this article seems to be to extend the Nightclub fires category[[1]]. Perhaps the category needs to have an associated list article that could capture non-notable nightclub fire events as list entries - a portion of this article could then be merged into that one. There are certain similarities between this fire and other nightclub fires, which might be relevant to the encyclopedia. --Jaymax (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep Nom states that article "probably passes the GNG". Citing WP:EVENT seems to be a WP:POINT to attempt to justify this proposed guideline. If so, an event in the PRC may not be the best test case for trying to locate ongoing coverage or depth of coverage. Having been corrected, if it passes the WP:GNG, sub-guidelines don't matter. In the same manner that an athlete who passes the WP:GNG does not need to meet WP:ATHLETE, and event doesn't need to pass WP:EVENTS if it meets the general guideline for notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that WP:EVENT is not a proposed guideline, it is a guideline. Your argument is akin to saying "Doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, but passes GNG, so it should be kept" The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that WP:EVENT is an official guideline, the criteria for a Speedy Keep are not met in this instance. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revised statement, that is more accurate. WP:N does indeed say that anything that meets GNG qualifies. However, this is at odds with some of the specific guidelines, such as WP:FILM and WP:EVENT, which are more strict. I have created a proposal to attempt to clarify how the relationship between the guidelines exists in common practice, but for now the two guidelines are at odds with each other. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guideline WP:GNG clashes explicitly with the policy WP:NOTNEWS, and the guideline WP:EVENT attempts to resolve this dichotomy by laying out the principles by which we judge whether an event is notable. It did receive some international press at the time, but a burst of news reports is not sufficient to show notability. The bulk of the news reports are immediately after the event, and are as such routine reporting in which the news media rehash wire stories and make no real analysis. I can find a total of two stories from October 2008, then none subsequently, and there is no mention of the event in any books on Google Books. The event had no apparent lasting effect. Fences&Windows 17:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. SnottyWong talk 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this not an event? The reason why this drew attention for deletion is because it was listed on the template:Nightclub fires. It probably should not have been featured that way. This event got more people aware of public place safety standards. Whether media outside China will pick up on it, probably not. Benjwong (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying that this isn't an event. What i'm saying is that we have a guideline that discusses the criteria necessary for an event to have its own article. I co-wrote that guideline, and I believe that this article does not meet the requirements. If it can be demonstrated that it increased awareness of safety standards, then please provide this evidence. I have not been able to find it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obviously important disaster. A nightclub fire with 43 dead is historic enough, wherever in the world it happens. Wikipedia in part resembles an almanac, and almanacs cover such things. If articles on events like this are going to be nominated, we need a substantial revision of NOT NEWS, or at least a rational interpretation of it. The virtue of the GNG was that it would enable us to avoid judging whether something was really truly important or actually historic, because we could simply go by the sources. I'd rather go by judgment in areas where there would be reasonably sound and reproducble judgment--but if judgment is going to be so absurd as this, maybe we do need the GNG as the basic criterion DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "If articles on events like this are going to be nominated, we need a substantial revision of NOT NEWS, or at least a rational interpretation of it." Er... try Wikipedia: Notability (events). Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with saying "doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, but passes WP:GNG, so should be kept"? Barack Obama clearly fails WP:ATHLETE, but we wouldn't delete his article at AFD because he passes notability in other ways. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just plain applying the wrong subject-specific notability guideline to the article. Obama is not primarily an athlete. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2009 (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.