Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clerkenwell cinema 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. The nominator makes a plausable case for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS but I have to go with the rough consensus to keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerkenwell cinema fire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Tragic event which fails WP:NOT. Page itself says, "The incident is now almost entirely forgotten...". Deprodded by article creator. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Event does not fail notability guidelines in the least, 'largely forgotten' or otherwise. Many other fires on Wikipedia from the same period, particularly those from Western countries, had 1) a lower death toll and 2) raise no social and cultural concerns. The incident was also an arson, which gives it further notability regarding criminal history, 11 deaths is one of the highest counts for any convicted killing in the UK. As the complaint itself says, "Tragic event...". (AbrahamCat (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC))
 * WP:Other stuff exists. 11 deaths is probably not one of the highest counts for any convicted killing, and the perpetrator pled to 3 manslaughters. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, other stuff does exist. Other equally notable articles. While the piece does mention that the incident is largely forgotten, this is only in relation of the scale of the incident in itself, which has cultural bearing in itself, and for sure the event has not faded entirely into obscurity. And at the risk of a tit-for-tat battle it probably was one of the highest death counts in the UK resulting in a conviction - 11 deaths is just 1 less than Fred West, and 2 less than Peter Sutcliffe. This whole instance seems very discouraging to contributions from non-wikipedia veterans. I'm at a loss to fathom why this article was forwarded for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbrahamCat (talk • contribs) 23:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are third party references covering the subject in the article. Please explain why this does not constitute notability. patsw (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The rational for deletion is not WP:Notability, a WP:Guideline, but WP:NOT, a WP:Policy. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The references are not news references but referring to it as a historical event. Please explain why WP:NOT applies here.  You have merely asserted it. patsw (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically AfD discussions on news events revolve around lasting effects or coverage. The sources in this article are blogs etc, and a couple news articles from 1994. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment A significant fire. A significant crime. patsw (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep have many third party reference and notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luka govisky (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  — Luka govisky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Abductive  (reasoning) 22:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The matter is now history not news. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The only coverage I can find is news stories in the immediate aftermath of the event. Normally, I would put this down as a WP:NOTNEWS, but given the seriousness and uniqueness of this tragic event, I think that's enough to make it a yes. Possibly a candidate for a merge if anyone knows a suitable destination, but not a delete. (If the 2007 book has substantial coverage of the fire, that will also count in its favour.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with WP:NOT, we don't create articles for every tragic fire in Wikipedia. it needs enduring long standing coverage. the "uniqueness" of circumstances would be reflected in wider if not international coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Colonel Warden's point.  Ebikeguy (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (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.