Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Paris explosion (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 keep. The consensus is keep. Any renaming discussions should take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Paris explosion
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The media coverage was of short duration, indicating there was no lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a gas leak isn't a notable incident unless proven for its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as the coverage is fleeting. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article survived a AfD in January, with a clear consensus to keep. It should be kept for the same reasons that it was kept then. It was a significant event which meets the notability criteria: a fatal accident in a busy part of a large city. It was covered by the mainstream media in several countries. The investigation into the explosion and the deaths caused by it is probably still ongoing - and will likely lead to changes in health & safety laws. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't know why this went to a second AfD, I am still going with keep for a number of facts; issues about the events were raised in the French parliament talks to review health and safety issues and the world wide news coverage about the event. Article could be greatly improved. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - And close swiftly. This was put through AfD in January with a clear Keep decision. I see nothing that would indicate that this article should be deleted now. Per coverage, per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The arguments for and against in the first AfD were very weak, such that I don't think that should have any bearing on any policy-based nomination. Regardless, it looks like there's been coverage in the time since. Lasting significance is what we need to see, and I'm seeing things like    . That's good enough for now. Some of it could be chalked up to routine coverage of the investigation, but there's enough of it, and enough angles, that I don't think it's a problem. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with the people who want to keep this article for the reasons that they are giving. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient arguments have already been made in the first AfD discussion. Furthermore, investigations into the incident are still ongoing and media coverage may even continue. WolreChris (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe rename to 2019 Paris bakery explosion. At first glance I wondered if it was anything to do with the fire at Notre Dame, and was maybe some kind of lunatic conspiracy theory article. 78.147.45.52 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Govvy comment, the last Afd Keep comments laid bare why the article should remain. Garlicolive (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.