Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kostroma café 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 per WP:SNOW. The lone "delete" !vote claims that the Fire is small-scale and does not have enduring coverage, but that opinion has been drowned out by both with the much more widely held (but subjective) opinion that the Fire is significant, as well as the (objective) existence of news coverage (The Guardian and BBC). This closure should not be construed as my opinion towards the subject matter. If you have any concerns, please feel free to reverse this disclosure while pinging me. Thank you. (non-admin closure) NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Kostroma café fire

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

A fire in which people died, as sadly happens regularly. Fails WP:NOTNEWS; this is the sort of content one expects to find in r/ANormalDayInRussia, not in an encyclopedia. Nothing about this routine event suggests that it will have any long-term impact.  Sandstein  21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   21:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is not an ordinary or typical fire. The circumstances of its cause are unusual, it has a double-digit death toll and police have arrested a suspect. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Small-scale domestic fire/crime that shows no clear aspects of having enduring coverage as required by WP:N. --M asem  (t) 23:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It shows aspects of having coverage that exceeds WP:NOT News. First, there are still reports today . Second, cafe belongs to Member of Kostroma Parliament. Coverage is guranteered, even apart of the circumstances of the incident. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This has high news coverage and is not the usual everyday fire. As for the "no long term impact," a lot of events are like this but are still on Wikipedia.  Quantum XYZ  ( chat  ) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: passes the notability guidelines, more than just news coverage. Unspectrogram (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is literally a Category:Nightclub fires started by pyrotechnics whose member articles utterly negate the nominator's claim, and a glance at List of nightclub fires shows quite a few articles on fires that resulted in fewer deaths. The nominator should withdraw this nomination. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. This was reported by virtually all reputable news outlets around the world, including the BBC (first article), BBC (second article), Reuters, CNN, France24 and DW, so this doesn’t seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NOT:NEWS is exactly why this should be deleted. A burst of coverage is not sufficient for notability or inclusion, we are looking for enduring coverage, and that's why most everyday news events are not covered by WP. M asem (t) 13:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. Similar incidents with a double-digit death toll heeded by the media globally are almost always included on Wikipedia. You surely know this given how long you've been around and what you've been engaged with. The BBC published two news articles with a gap of almost one day, something they usually don't do for most stories that we have articles about. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not a strict rule with a clearly defined numerical cut-off, so it virtually boils down to community consensus whether something should have an article or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this going to have any long term coverage a week from now? a month from now? a year from now? Pretty much no. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, where this type of article should start when the notability threshold is clearly not met. We specifically state that a burst of coverage is not equivalent to notability, and that's what is not being considered here. M asem (t) 04:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The answers to your questions lie on a crystal-ball territory. Overall, what you say makes a highly eliminatory criterion that is inapplicable in practice (How many news events with articles have that long-term coverage? Certainly very few.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From week - definitely, there is an ongoing coverage now, news from today  . A month from now - very likely yes. A year - I don't know, but it is not needed to have coverage a year from now for the article to exist. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is far from being an everyday news event. There will be a lot of further media coverage in regard to the suspect, and the investigation into what happened. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also sources   Kirill C1 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Worldwide coverage, definitely not Run-of-the-mill. There continues to be coverage . Kirill C1 (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Extensive coverage. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - double-digit death toll, much more than an everyday event. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This passes WP:GNG. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Extensive coverage, a not common death toll, and an ongoing investigation which could give us more about this incident (talk--Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as passing GNG as mentioned above. I think consensus is clear now. Mellk (talk) 22:10, 10 November 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.