Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 DCC market fire


 * 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 redirect to Gulshan Thana. All the content is already there. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 DCC market fire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

blatant WP:NOTNEWS. Yes a big fire with lots of shops damaged but even a report two weeks after the event states no casualties or deaths. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep News coverage of event has reasonable WP:DEPTH. The article needs more in-depth content added, but the sources exist for it. Delete for now Even though news sources covered the event with some depth, they are still mostly primary sources. Coverage of the event seemed to dry up around 19 January – more time is needed to establish whether the event has lasting significance for an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 08:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Updated to support Merge & redirect proposal. The topic is verifiable, just not notable enough for its own article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Incubate Merge Don't rush to create articles. It's too soon to say whether the fire will have enduring historical significance. In its favor, it received national coverage in Bangladesh and was picked up by news agencies PTI and IANS, so it reached India and places with large populations of Bangladeshi workers, such as Qatar. After the first few days there were a few related stories, but until the investigation finishes (they've asked for three more months), there isn't likely to be factual analysis in secondary sources. The event could have a lasting impact (such as changes to building codes, fire safety regulations, etc.), but it's impossible to say at this time. Incubate, Merge to Gulshan Thana as a reasonable alternative to deletion, until the long term effect of the event becomes clear. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed recommendation from incubate to merge following Noyster's persuasive argument. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge A sentence in Gulshan Thana should cover it Noyster (talk),  10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   23:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * question It's great that four editors have participated, and good points have been made by all, but there hasn't been any discussion beyond staking out our positions. None of the participants so far think it should have been created or currently works as a stand alone article, so is there a disposition we can agree on that avoids it being kept as "no consensus"? An IP has, in effect, done what Noyster suggested, by adding a sentence to Gulshan Thana citing the article's three sources. I'd be willing to change my recommendation to merge and redirect if that would help settle this. What do you say? Redirects are cheap, if down the road sufficient analysis is published to warrant an article, the redirect could be turned back into one, and it's in line with the subsections of policy WP:ATD. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll enlarge on my somewhat pithy "merge" !vote. (a) Why not keep? Per the !votes above mine and by analogy with the Exeter fire of October 2016, a major incident in anyone's book. That doesn't have its own article: it is briefly mentioned in the main Exeter article and more extensively in the one about the individual building at the heart of the blaze. In the Dhaka case, if there were a sizeable article about DCC Market the fire could be covered more extensively there, but we don't have that article yet, we only have Gulshan Thana which is a large downtown area containing the market, so that seems the best place to include the brief text under discussion. (b) Why not delete? Because we seek alternatives to deletion, especially where there is sourced content that isn't advertising, COI or otherwise problematic. "Merge" seems the best course here, per "Merging" Noyster (talk),  10:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect - I'm jumping in very late in the game to agree that this seems most suitable merged and redirected to Gulshan Thana. If at some point we obtain enough WP:RS to create a whole article at DCC Market, we can move the content over there. Hell, if the fire does wind up creating some kind of long-lasting national repercussions, we can always move the content back out to its own article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:24, 14 February 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.