Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse


 * 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. Keep "votes" do not address the NOT#NEWS issue. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"There was a minor structural collapse on a construction site. There were no fatalities but two people were injured." Yes, it's sourced – but this is not a noteworthy event. Things like this happen all the time; the only reason this ever received coverage in the first place was that Hazel Blears had an office in the building and was evacuated. –  iride scent  18:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Event is not notable; see also WP:NOTNEWS --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per ThaddeusB. Tim  meh  !  01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Admittedly I may have some COI regarding this, being a structural engineer (but in no way connected to this incident). I would disagree that this sort of thing 'happens all the time'. Building collapses nearly always get lots of press attention, precisely because of their rarity. The incident received extensive news coverage at the time (nationally and internationally), and I have found a further source from the Time afer the incident, indicating some sort of ongoing coverage from a reputable source. I have found further information, though in more specialist sources, . As well as being an item of 'news', the article is also interesting due to the factors involved in the collapse, namely: work being carried out without approval; it was quite remarkable that no one was killed; using cheap immigrant labour; carrying out work without proper expert advice; inability to prosecute the developer etc. There is enough information out there to improve the article, but I am still unsure as to whether it would meet the notability requirements. To me as an engineer it is certainly notable, but I can understand why others would deem it not. Quantpole (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if rewritten. Per Quantpole, but the extra information in his comment is what would make the article more interesting/notable. We need after-the-fact information on the nature and cause of the collapse, and the information on unauthorized work, and inability to prosecute.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Notability of a "two storey" building or of its collapse is not inherited from famous buildings nearby. Edison (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I sent a message to somebody on Flickr and convinced them to let us use a photograph. The license was changed to CC-BY. I've added the photograph to the article. Edward (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The event is not notable enough to be encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news archive. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Diana LeCrois (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - Move to Wikinews. Edward (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2009 (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.