Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bootleg 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 WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Bootleg Fire

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I think it fails GNG, along with being very short, just 18 references and very short sections. 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru 🌀 SuperTyphoonNoru (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks like it can pass WP:GNG criteria by the significant coverage of it by reliable sources, though I would tag some sections with .  Sarrail  (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. 18 sources is usually enough to meet GNG in most cases as long as some of them are in depth. The InciWeb links have gone dead, but can most likely be retrieved from an archive as it is a government site.  The fire is big enough and important enough to escape a WP:NOTNEWS criticism.  It is being cited as an example of the severe effects of climate change in multiple sources so likely to have lasting notability. SpinningSpark 18:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - New York Times and CNN alone is GNG. This New York Times source from January of this year and this local source from July of this year suggest there's enough lasting coverage to pass WP:PERSISTENCE. casualdejekyll  23:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Obviously passes general notability requirements given the preponderance of source material. 18 citations and many of them to news articles that exclusively cover the subject. Having short sections is not even remotely a valid deletion reason, given that we have stubs that are also notable. Steven Walling &bull; talk  05:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep 18 sources is a lot, and the page itself seems solid enough. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and well sourced. Needs an expansion though. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources and coverage.-- Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 04:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources cited in the article demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep 18 references are a lot and some of these are great sources. PAsses GNG.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  18:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly and obviously notable. There isn't even a lot to say: it is well-cited and well-covered, and just because it's short isn't a reason for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2022 (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.