Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant 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. Regarding a possible merge with Hurricane Harvey, there is no consensus; it's likely too soon to tell whether a merge is appropriate. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Arkema plant explosion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not news. There were -- thankfully -- no significant deaths or injuries from this incident. Granted, the explosions received a little more notice because of the lens currently focused on Hurricane Harvey but that is not nearly enough to ignore issues with WP:DIVERSE and WP:LASTING. Two alternatives to outright deletion come to mind: redirect this to the company article or briefly mention it under the damages related to the hurricane. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As nom, I support the merge target voters are conversing on here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hurricane Harvey#Texas. It certainly doesn't deserve a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Per nom and per WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the sections on Arkema and Hurricane Harvey. Those sections are identical to the article and more upto date. I also question the notablity of the seperate article. Sawblade5 (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 13:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hurricane Harvey. Gary &#34;Roach&#34; Sanderson (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy incubate and salt article for two weeks This problem is easily solved with a Criteria for Speedy Incubation template for "breaking news". This has been hitting most news cycles for days, and last night we were still waiting for new fires to break out.  Why merge something that hasn't happened, yet? Unscintillating (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that the nominator has withdrawn, count me in the keep group.  This is a profoundly interesting unique event that will have long-term concerns and notability and lots of news still to come with the lawsuits.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but are you observing the same AfD? I never withdrew my nomination. I am simply letting the community know I would not oppose a merger since there is an appropriate area to redirect this afterwards. There still is no basis for a standalone article or evidence of significant long-term consequences. Your WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is spontaneous combustion of organic peroxides in your backyard industrial park, due to economic engineering that justifies building in flood plains depending on the cost of rebuilding and the frequency of flooding. There is also an element of hubris in the failed planning for backup generators.  That is plenty to keep the article for now, until we have more information.  Harvey is only incidentally related, IMO.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep (for now) I suggest we keep the article a little while longer while we wait to see what happens, but if it doesn't get more coverage, let's merge it. 2601:140:4:1570:329E:D250:D00F:6CDA (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is continuing to get extensive attention from the media, and it is already clear that this event has long-term and complex ramifications.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The very source you use to attempt to demonstrate long-term significance states "there are no concentrations of concern for toxic materials reported at this time". No major environmental repercussions, no casualties, and WP:ROUTINE news reports. Not very convincing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you listen to the news? These fires create smoke, which is an irritant.  How can you say with a straight face that international coverage of spontaneous combustion of organic peroxides is routine?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hurricane_Harvey; not independently notable (just yet). No need for a merge, as the target article already covers the subject in more detail than what's in the article under discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to Hurricane_Harvey; I'm with K.e. here, there is nothing really here in this article. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is not defined by what is in an article. Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * From Google News: Washington Post 3 days ago, "But with that budget still only a proposal, the board announced an investigation of the fires at the Arkema chemical plant in Crosby, Texas ..." Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Keep the article, or merge to 2017 Arkema plant explosion . --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * did you perhaps mean to write Hurricane Harvey or Arkema?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Hurricane Harvey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've updated the article to the point that there is no significant relation between the Hurricane Harvey material and the Crosby plant explosions material.  There are now seven references in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ehh, now it just looks slapdash. The article is about the Crosby explosions and the flooding from Hurricane Harvey is cited as a cause so what did you exactly accomplish -- what it is ain't exactly clear. The lobbying campaign may be useful information for Arkema though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously I failed to accomplish getting you on track with speaking without basing arguments on implied fallacies, such as that one of the arguments for deletion is "article is slapdash". Since you don't show that you keep up with U.S. news, the first explosion occurred on 31 August with Harvey's initial landfall on 25 August.  As the second (technically the third) landfall occurred on 30 August, 80 miles to the East, "the Houston area was just beginning to recover from the biggest rainstorm in the recorded history of the continental United States." WA Post.  So the hurricane in Houston was gone when the first explosion occurred.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * it wasn't a rationale for deletion; I just stated the article is now disorganized and hastily put together.
 * Maybe you should read this article by The New York Times, specifically this quote: "The fires, a result of flooding in the wake of Hurricane Harvey that caused chemicals to become unstable, had little health impact beyond the 21 emergency workers who were treated for smoke exposure. The returning homeowners now face more common problems that follow a flood: crumbling plasterboard, ruined furnishings and, above all, mold". The floods were caused by Harvey, hence Harvey triggered the explosion. Harvey was long gone but the devastation it caused does not magically disappear with the hurricane. It also reasserts my original opening statement which pointed out there were little health impacts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And there is an unusual argument for deletion, WP:delete when an evacuation of a 1.5 mi radius area of the nearby community has had little health impacts, and only 21 first responders, for smoke inhalation and exposure to flood water, go to the hospital. Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the explanation that WP:article is slapdash is not an argument for deletion, then what was it? Was it an argument to merge?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh, what an utterly pointless comment on your part. If you are not going to bother responding civilly, do not reply. Simple. Unfortunately, for you WP:UNCIVIL is an actual policy, not a daft redlink aimed at making some sort of WP:POINT.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the space of four sentences your comments argue both that my comments are "pointless" and that they "mak[e] some sort of WP:POINT". Please review that I came here as a supporter of your WP:NOTNEWS argument.  You then said that you "support"ed merge, but you objected when I understood that to mean you had withdrawn.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - The info on the Hurricane's page has more info that this page. If it gets more notable, I would vote for Weak Reverse Merge instead. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, there is a lot more material here than could fit into the hurricane article. Good work with the improvements, User:Unscintillating. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 03:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep due to WP:HEYMANN upgrades by User:Unscintillating.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note long, detailed story in yesterday's New York Times detailing years of management of this plant ignoring warnings about safety by it's own investigators and by government regulators; govt. regulators atarted an investigation of safety at this plant just last month.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the entire text of the four relevant sentences from Hurricane Harvey, using oldid=799316853:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

On August 30, the CEO of Arkema warned one of its chemical plants in Crosby, Texas, could explode or be subject to intense fire due to the loss of "critical refrigeration" of materials. All workers at the facility and residents within 1.5 mi were evacuated. Eight of the plant's nine refrigeration units failed without power, enabling the stored chemicals to decompose and become combustible. Two explosions occurred around 2:00 a.m. on August 31; 21 emergency personnel were briefly hospitalized.
 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please Close Nomination per WP:SNOW against deletion and the nominator's withdraw request above. The consensus is not clear as of yet for merge but there is no deletion rationales in this nomination. Sawblade5 (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 01:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I never withdrew and, even if I did, editors are discussing the possibility of merging and redirecting the article which, contrary to your belief, has support. An admin cannot simply interfere with that process.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then, withdraw. When you said that you "support"ed merger, that meant that you no longer felt that your argument for deletion had sufficient merit.  With my dropping my support for your nomination, your view stands alone against 13 editors.  A merge forum involves the opinions of the editors at both the source article and the target article, and does not need deletion specialists, since there is nothing to delete.  The forum here is called "Articles for Deletion".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * let me get this straight: because editors had a good idea for a merge, which I support, I should withdraw this discussion? Do you realize a consensus for merge can and regularly is reached at an AfD? My nomination still proves the subject is not notable for a standalone article but, per WP:PRESERVE, a suitable destination article can accept some of the content in a WP:SMERGE. Editors are discussing, views on policy are being weighted; stop trying to impede that with calls to close them out. I made perfectly clear I will not close the discussion so please drop the stick and do not ask me again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:HEY: Yesterday's international headline: "Houston flood: Texas emergency crews sue Arkema chemical plant". This looks more notable with every day that passes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and in addition to the BBC there are strong articles from WA Post and The Atlantic. The article from The Atlantic is written by a staff writer who covers politics and policy.


 * Keep, industrial explosions that receive coverage in multiple third-party sources are usually notable. Seems to have quite a bit of independent coverage, not just passing mentions in articles about the hurricane. --Delirium (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep. It's far too soon to even survey the damage. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If it is WP:TOOSOON to evaluate the notability of a subject, an article shouldn't be created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2017 (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.