Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Nigel nursing home fire (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The one keep argument has little grounding in policy, against the consensus that this violates several of them. Courcelles 20:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 Nigel nursing home fire
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fires are common occurrences. Just because this fire occurred does not make it significant. 22 deaths is tragic, but not necessarily notable. Not of lasting significance. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable event. Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Retain - I respectfully disagree. Any fire in a nursing home that killed 22 residents, most of whom were "burned alive in their beds," is noteworthy.  The blaze was reported in worldwide news sources, which increases its claim to notability.  Had nobody died in the conflagration, or even just one or two persons, I would agree with Mikemoral.  However, this high of a death toll rates an article on the subject, in my opinion.  But this is just my opinion; nothing more. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. The death of 22 humans is tragic and sad, but there is no evidence of lasting impact and Wikipedia is not memorial site. The event may be "newsworthy", but not "noteworthy". Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above comments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it was featured on DYK, it's notable.  As for the claim that there was no lasting impact, the event only happened earlier this month.SPNic (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not necessarily notable. By that statement, it seems you'd be in favor of an article for each building fire, no matter the cause or consequences. — Mike moral  ♪♫  15:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete. It's a shame to have to delete a well developed article such as this, but there has simply not been enough coverage to sustain it. We're neither a news service nor a memorial site. The event, while tragic, has had no ongoing coverage and one small spike in news coverage is not enough to sustain an article on an event. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:01, 29 August 2010 (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.