Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines)


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Bulacan Factory Explosion (Santa Maria, Philippines)

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

*Keep The main statements of WP:NOTNEWS are that Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article, which doesn't really apply, and breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information, which guides us to incorporate recent developments into the article rather than giving them prominence. WP:N is the basis that should be used for article creation. I am of the opinion that freak events with death tolls above a few people are automatically notable, so long as we have the reliable sources to make an article or addition to an existing article. These events are used as examples to change safety regulations, are something people remember (and fear, especially factory workers in Asia; a large population), and are unexpected enough that they don't get relegated to statistics like Gang violence (unless we want to merge it all into an Industrial Detonation in Asia article). It has significant, independent, reliable coverage at the national level and was printed by global news outlets including Aljazeera  and the Wall Street Journal. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A tragic incident, but lasting notability is not established. Fails according to WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews unless it can be established to be noteworthy on at least a national level. - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may not be the Triangle shirtwaist fire, it's apparently being investigated as criminal negligence in the deaths of 13 employees. | "Task Force Probes Bulacan Killer Blast".  Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy WP:NOTNEWS also states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". There is no indication of historical notability at this time. Alluding to changing safety regulations is just an example of WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it not historically notable? Habanero-tan (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because history is not determined in 11 days. Only time will tell whether the event has historical notability. For example, did it definitely lead to a change in safety laws? Is there a national monument erected on the site? Is the media still referring to the incident after 6 months, 12 months? WWGB (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Move to WikiNews I have changed my vote to agree with the criteria in this essay: News articles, which this article doesn't yet meet. Also, I saw how many articles were made about news events during a few months, and that fine line between what to keep and what to delete shifted in my opinion. I also learned that this explosion was caused by an overheating broiler, which isn't a terribly freak event. Boilers, which are similar to broilers in that they have fire and can explode, have  historically lead to many factory deaths. People can always search through Google News or Wikinews to learn about factory accidents; they wont be forgotten (which was my worry in my initial argument). Habanero-tan (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent statement  by Habanero-tan of the correct principles for this sort of article. If serious national newspapers cover it substantially, it has lasting notability.  DGG (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the explosion that woke me up early one Sunday morning a few years ago but didn't actually kill anyone is considered notable then I don't see why a much more serious incident in the Philippines shouldn't be. And please don't scream WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The point is that nobody would dream of nominating the Buncefield article for deletion, so let's apply the same standards to incidents in non-Anglophone countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Philippines is an Anglophone country. --seav (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. That depends on your definition of "Anglophone". I meant that most people in the Philippines don't have English as their native language. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ring ring ring Anglophone User:Carlos Santito (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.40.217 (talk)
 * Keep Definitely a keeper, as explained well by Habanero-tan. The weakness of the criteria applied by the nominator in his misunderstanding of NOTNEWS can be easily grasped by the fact that the same could be said of any article on a current event, including a hypothetical WW III, because even that one would in his view be CRYSTAL.--Aldux (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is now 12 days after the event and media interest and coverage seem to have ceased, suggesting that the event is unlikely to meet any historical notability provision (per WP:INFO). WWGB (talk) 11:31, 19 April 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.