Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barking 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 keep. –Darkwind (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Barking fire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, but I'm not at all convinced this is appropriate for Wikipedia. I declined the prod request because it technically passes GNG by virtue of news coverage, but this was a fairly routine fire which had no casualties and caused limited damage (the residents started moving back in just 5 days after the fire) to a single block. It got a disproportionate amount of news coverage because it was the first large fire in a London residential block after the Grenfell Tower fire rather than because there was any particular significance; the fire that destroyed central Walthamstow a couple of months later was orders of magnitude more significant in terms of damage caused and economic and social impact yet we wouldn't even consider giving it an article. Although this had a disproportional amount of coverage on the day, to me this is a fairly clear WP:109PAPERS case. Plus, while I appreciate that AfD is not cleanup, in just 482 words this article manages to include a citation to the Daily Mirror, two raw URLs in the article text, and four unsourced paragraphs including one which is potentially libellous. &#8209; Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  &#8209; Iridescent 08:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The Grenfell fire has resulted in much interest in the construction and regulation of cladding. Examples of other major fires naturally form part of this.  The Grenfell article has a section which lists such examples and the Barking fire appears there.  But that article is tagged as too long and so perhaps the details should be split off.  These developments would best be done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mirror and the bare URLs are gone, now. Uncle G (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Pleased to see the improvements that have occurred in the last 24 hours, it shows WP at its best. I started the article because of its major political, emotional and sociological importance. The issue that made the Guardian so agitated was that it was a cladding fire, and post Grenfell that is a political and building issue- both here and in similar blocks. I like the suggestion of writing an article on the Walthamstow dhopping centre fire- could someone else start it as I don't do shopping malls but could help with the job loss aspect. I think the article is a sensible starting point, possibly with retrospect I would have chosen a different title but at the time this seemed the best choice. I would like to expand this to link or explain the Barking Reach develepment, the architectural structure and the involvement of Bellway and London and Quadrant.
 * I considered the WP:109PAPERS essay. To apply I think it must pass three tests- It must be 'of an instance' clearly the story starts with warnings being sent to builders, then there is the event and weeks later we are still waiting for legislation . Test failed. It must be a repetition from a single source (press release)- here we have, the Guardian a most notable national newspaper that we use as a source on WP repeatedly, then we have a reliable building trade journal giving the technical details (different nature) then we have a local paper giving the human interest. Test fails. Thirdly temporary notability- ok we are waiting the legislation but within housing, building and government this is established and will be raised again next time next time anyone dies in a fire in social housing. Test fails.ClemRutter (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taewangkorea (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete run-of-the-mill fire with no casualties. The contention that this event has "major political, emotional and sociological importance" is not supported. Already mentioned in Grenfell Tower fire which is the appropriate level of coverage for this event.Pontificalibus 06:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - If the coverage had died out in June/July I could understand this delete, but I see that it was still being covered in reliable sources in August and this month: 1 2 3. Whilst I am ambivalent about the likelihood that this topic will continue to receive sustained coverage, it is an example of an on-going phenomenon in British society (large buildings clad in energy-saving cladding burning down), and there is a strong likelihood of a report in the near future that may have further coverage. FOARP (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, generally improved. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - a classic case of WP:HEY with both additions of information -- and deletions of cruft. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2019 (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.