Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Milwaukee explosion


 * 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. Agent 86 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Milwaukee explosion
I fail to see the notability of this event. Many deadlier and more destructive incidents are not covered. Anyway, as the story developed the article didn't grew at all. I also welcome any merging options. -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 11:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I added this to the AfD log page. afd3 had ended up on Piss roulette's AfD page instead. No vote. Tonywalton | Talk 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Definately Keep - This story is currently unfoldiing, we should keep it. This event also made major national headlines, including a minute long spot on the NBC Nightly News.User:Millipedeman 8:56, 7 December 6 2006 (CST)
 * Weak Keep - 10,000 gallon propane tank? In all honsety, I have always wondered what one of those would do if it exploded. The article is poorly written, but should stay for now.  Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I agree with Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider). Although the article is poorly written the subject in hand was tragic and therefore should be kept for the time being.Debaser23 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I put the article up, seeing as it was a disaster of some size, but apparently it hasn't turned out to be as notable as I had thought it was. Moreover, I didn't have the time to expand it into anything bigger than a stub. Maybe we should merge it into some explosions page or something. OTOH, maybe we should leave it to stand and develop on its own merits. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - "This article is a stub" is a terrible reason to delete. Also, one less was killed in the 2006 Rome metro crash, but it survived AfD, and the same with Airwork Flight 23.Blood red sandman 17:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article could easily be brought up to the standards of those in Category:Explosions and the subcategory Category:Gas explosions, or other disaster articles. Merging is an idea, but disaster articles actually make nice compact slices of history of their own. I can never resist pointing people to my all-time favorite: Boston_molasses_disaster. Carcharoth 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup —  This article NEEDS to have some serious work done. Keep for now only assuming good faith that the article will be improved on. Wizardman 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I intend to do some work on it as soon as I get long enough to do it. Blood red sandman 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a lot tonight, I intend to continue tommorow. Blood red sandman 22:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. We can't have articles for every local disaster or accident, otherwise I'm going to go off an create an article called 1980 Saskatoon Queen's Hotel fire which is notable as causing the first-ever deaths of firefighters in that city's history. Had the loss of life been large, had it been a terrorist attack, or had it otherwise been anything more than a major local fire, I might look at it differently. But it hasn't even continued to be a major story on CNN. In response to the keeping of the Rome Metro crash, etc. cited above ... maybe there might have been mitigating factors that might have been involved. Put them up for AFD again and I might vote to delete or I might vote to keep. Each situation is different. If kept, this article needs to be renamed, however; surely it's not the only explosion of some kind that occurred in that city this year. 23skidoo 19:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Hotel Roosevelt fire (which I wrote, actually), which was not only notable but caused a large loss of life. I would say write that article about the Saskatoon fire. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Go write that article - I for one would be interested to read it. Blood red sandman 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to abstain from listing an outright 'keep' or 'delete' for this because I live in Milwaukee and might be a bit too close to the events to be neutral, but there are serious outstanding controversies about the explosion that ensure it's not going to be out of the headlines anytime soon, and it has already cleared WP:N with room to spare given news articles in the Chicago Tribune and Journal-Sentinal at least already, the day after. Furthermore I don't think the article is doomed to stubiness, there remain serious issues outstanding.  I also think it's premature to AfD an ongoing event the day after the article was made and the event itself happened on the grounds of article quality and notability, sources will exist, but they may not exist yet the day after a major (literally ground-shaking, I felt the blast more than 20 miles away) event. Wintermut3 22:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been looking for similar stuff (using "what links here" on the "current event" template is one way) and I found London Tornado of 2006. There was also a big fireworks factory explosion in the UK a few days ago that killed two firefighters, but I've failed to find any coverage here or at Wikinews - see BBC article. The 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire is an example of something similar that is larger and obviously notable. Sometimes these things are covered better by Wikinews, sometimes an article on the event is created and survives here as well. While looking over at Wikinews, I found James Kim as an example of an article that has been dominated by the news of his being missing and then found dead. All these are examples of immediatism. Carcharoth 23:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That fireworks explosion is covered, at the East Hoathly with Halland and Festival Fireworks articles; it just doesn't as yet have an article of it's own. Just by the way, I'm a UK resident and Sky News (who are brilliant for breaking news coverage, and deserve their awards in that area) aired some very impressive footage of all the fireworks launching and exploding - there was a lot of stuff to explode in there. Blood red sandman 07:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see no question about it. Three dead and 37+ injured.  There are a lot of explosion disasters with lesser impact that have bigger articles.  As the story develops there will be more to say about it. In response to 23skidoo: I agree that the article needs renaming, but you also woke my interest for the 1980 Saskatoon Queen's Hotel fire.  If that was what you say it is, it should be created! --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 10:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, why not compare this to the Mississauga house explosion. Surely, the Milwaukee explosion exceeds the importance of that article? --  rxnd  (  t  |  &#8364;  |  c  ) 11:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a message on 23skidoo's talk page to the effect that we would genuinly like to see that article, as you are the third editor including myself who has commented to that effect. Blood red sandman 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep As stated above, articles on lesser disasters have been kept, thus, this one should be kept. --CF90 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup I think this article has merit from an emergency management perspective, especially if information regarding possible mitigation or preparedness steps (possibly controversial discussion) are included. I would change the name to be more specific, perhaps including the Fauk name. It definitely needs to be kept current, though. Parradoxx 19:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I went by the explosion about five minutes after it happened on a coach bus, and I can say with no question that it was the biggest fire I have ever seen. It was enormous. The event made national news and was mentioned several times on Fox News Channel as well as hours and hours on Milwaukee TV. I made an article on the Falk Corporation the next day and included some of the info about the fire. The story is still being investigated, it's rather interesting because six of the people said there was no formal evacuation. I might have a picture of the fire, someone on the bus had a digital camera took a picture (I could only manage getting one on my phone). I believe this story is notable enough. Just think about it; a 10,000 gallon propane tank. I guess I'll clean it up a little bit. I just hope I can get that picture.++ aviper2k7 ++ 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, of courseAre we really so unable to judge what news events will continue to have interest that we delete articles like this one?DGG 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep An event being considered "unimportant" by one or more editors is not a good enough reason to delete it. Err on the side of inclusion.  --SECurtisTX 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.