Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nustar 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. Tone 10:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nustar Fire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. Such fires happen every day around the world, and get noted in the national news media, and then in most cases forgotten again. If this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten, then is the time to create an article. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep At least for now. The nomination seems to be a reason to not create the article. However it has already been created. As such, we should now wait (and without deleting) to see if "this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten".  We can delete it in a few weeks, if so. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the nomination is a reason not to have the article. We don't keep articles in the hope that they may turn out to be about notable subjects, e.g. many football player articles get created when they get a contract with a professional team, but we delete them and only let them be recreated when they have actually played for the team, which may be only a few weeks later as well. Furthermore, it is unlikely that lasting notability will somehow happen in a few weeks: if nothing happens with the fire, then lasting notability is very unlikely to happen in even a few years, unless it somehow leads to some new law or something similar. There is nothing in the article as it stands to suggest that this fire will be notable at any time.
 * A compromise could be to move it to draft space, and let it get moved back to mainspace if it becomes a notable fire. Fram (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now This could easily become a notable event, similar to e.g. the Buncefield fire. As it's already been created there's not need to draftify at this point. FOARP (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, fire started and contained on 15 October, article created 415AM of 16 October, way too soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We should note that this fire is still being covered in reliable sources. Additionally, there may well be some kind of inquiry into it which may well extend coverage. Again, the comparison is the Buncefield fire, which was also a fuel-depot fire, but certainly became notable. Per WP:LASTING "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.". This is such a case - it seems entirely possible that this will be anotable event so we should wait to see it's impact. FOARP (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: With some time passed, maybe it will be easier to decide on notability and impact.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dime-a-dozen, run-of-the-mill event of no lasting significance. Claiming it may become notable falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for now relevant policies WP:NORUSH and WP:NTEMP Wm335td (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The first is an essay, not a policy: the second is part of a policy and needs to be read in combination with the immediately following section WP:SUSTAINED, which this one by definition doesn't meet (yet?); basically, while "once notable, always notable" is a rule, the problem is that "once notable" cannot be established without sustained, not short-lived, coverage. Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fram - please familiarise yourself fully with WP:LASTING, particularly this bit: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Basically,, if it seems plausible that people will still be talking about this in a few months then we should keep for now. In this case, we know that there have been similar incidents (the Buncefield fire) that met notability, we know that there is still coverage of this event (air quality, potential link to an earthquake) in reliable source as of this week, we know that there will eventually be a report on the cause of the fire that may well receive WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with that page, thank you. That fire you keep referring to was " the biggest of its kind in peacetime Europe and certainly the biggest such explosion in the United Kingdom since the 1974 Flixborough disaster": "Because of an inversion layer, the explosions were heard up to 125 miles (200 km) away; there were reports that they were audible in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands". There are countless other fires comparable to the Nustar fire which don't have lasting notability, and which consequently don't have an article here. Taking an exceptional fire, with clear claims as to why it was exceptional, as a reason to keep a run-of-the-mill one because there is a small chance that it may turn out to be notable eventually, perhaps, who knows, it putting the cart before the horse. Fram (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you were familiar with that page, then you should have taken account of the potential for further coverage. Indeed, just a search of today's ongoing coverage in reliable sources of the fire shows that it is still ongoing. E.g., It turns out that Nustar didn't notify Hazmat officials about the fire, it also turns out that regulations about tank-farms may well change as a result of the disaster, all big indicators of likely ongoing coverage and potential lasting impact. You're saying this is a "dime-a-dozen", but not providing any explanation for why, if it is a "dime-a-dozen" fire, it's still being covered ten days later and regulatory changes are being proposed as a result of it. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * hich all looks like routine coverage in the immediate aftermath. Just like when you get some crime which makes regional headlines, and then gets minor regional followup accounts about investigation, arrest, conviction. Google News lists only 11 reports over the last week, all of them from local/regional news (either a local source, or the local section of a larger news outlet). If news coverage dwindles this rapidly, it isn't a fire with "lasting" effect and notability (based on what we know now). Fram (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Petty crime doesn't lead to changes in the law, nor even anyone proposing changes in the law. However, in this case, regulatory changes are being proposed - which is a classic indicator of notability as it shows it "act[ing] as a precedent or catalyst for something else" per WP:LASTING. Ten days isn't "dwindling quickly". FOARP (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "County regulations" (which is what may be changed here, "the county's industrial safety ordinance") are not the same as the kind of laws referenced in WP:LASTING though. Local regulations are in itself not even notable, and get changed all the time following events with a local impact. Neither the ordinances nor the things that lead to them are in most cases notable. Fram (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The site is also under investigation by state and federal officials, so this is not just a county-level-issue, nor are the regulatory changes being discussed only county-level. For example the quake-check regulations are state regulations. FOARP (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a different issue than state law being changed. There seems to be no evidence that changes to national or state-wide quake-check regulations are being proposed, where did you get this information? They are looking at whether there was a link between a quake and the fire, but that is not the kind of thing which wp:lasting is about. Trying to determine the cause of a fire is a normal step. Fram (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fram - It's pretty clear that when people are reporting that the "quake-check" under state-law which has to be performed for most depots, but not this one because of the nature of the site, that this regulation is being looked at. It's also likely that a state and federal investigation into the fire/explosion is going to issue a state/federal-level report which may well include regulatory changes. At this point in time we don't actually need to have those changes in hand because we're still in the initial "weeks or months" period under WP:LASTING. FOARP (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * keep The nomination correctly states that "fires happen every day around the world", but then asserts that they "get noted in the national news media, and then in most cases forgotten again..." GNG is the relevant policy here.  Fires that receive substantive covered by reliable sources merit an article, today.  I thought policy was clear on this, as contributors, all of us, everyone voicing an opinion here, including me, including Jimbo Wales and our nominator, is supposed to understand that our personal opinions on the importance of topics is supposed to take a distant back seat to the opinions of authoritative reliable sources.  Yet, the nomination seems to assert we should second guess those authoritative reliable sources, and put our judgement ahead of theirs, at some point in the future, when it asserts "If this turns out to be one of these cases which aren't largely forgotten, then is the time to create an article. "  Consider murder.  Murders are common, and, depressingly, similar.  That is why we have articles about practically zero murders.  Most murders are so similar that our articles on murder and related topics provide adequate coverage of them.  Murders that are somewhat exceptional may merit a sentence, or a paragraph, or subsection in a related article.  Murders that are quite exceptional may merit a standalone article, or even a cluster of articles.  It should all depend on what authoritative reliable sources say, with a minimum of editorializing on our part.  While  "fires happen every day around the world", a brief web search shows that this fire had exceptional elements.  Responders didn't follow procedures, making the response worse.  That merits a standalone article today, not months or years from now.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – It's still a news item 10 days after, though the big wildfires overshadow it; I just updated the article. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, have struck my "delete" as accepting that consensus is "keep" (although i am bemused by this wikiobsession with the almost instant creation of articles like this). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 27 October 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.