Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penhallow Hotel 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. Comments in favor of deletion cited WP:NOTNEWS and recentism as reasoning, but did little to explain why this event is not notable regardless of its age. The number of deaths in a fire can be indicative of notability but cannot rule out notability. IP 184.44.129.253 comment was ignored. Comments in favor of keeping showed that the event has received continued media coverage.  Jujutacular  talk 17:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Penhallow Hotel fire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable fire. Three deaths is not enough to count as a notable fire of encyclopedic proportions, and that it is "reported as the worst hotel fire in the UK in nearly 40 years" comes from a non-reliable source. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no good claim to notability that I can see, Sadads (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you again, Sadads. You know, I need a babysitter. You free anytime soon? Drmies (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No not particularly, grad school applications and honors thesis are hitting me pretty hard. Life is its usual mumbo-jumbo of crazy, Sadads (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It may have been the worst hotel fire in the UK for years but it doesn't pass muster compared with bigger disasters. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fire is tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG apply here. Not notable- William 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic has received significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources, here are some BBC News articles:, , , , . This topic passes WP:GNG with ease. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So you say. Some news reports are provided--now prove that it is of lasting, encyclopedic, notability. Drmies (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG, per Northamerica1000s showing of reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So every fire that kills three people if it gets media coverage is of encyclopedic notability? This is a case of recentism, and not historical at all.- William 15:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have to concur with this assessment, Sadads (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The fire, the aftermath, the coverage of it four years after the fire shows continual interest. Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway. But this gets lasting coverage.   D r e a m Focus  17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see the dilemma, but there's no hard line to be made based on the number of deaths.  News coverage is significant and surprisingly ongoing, so WP:GNG is met.  There are also indications that legislative changes re hotel safety are being considered as a result of this event, which suggests longer term notability.--Milowent • hasspoken  06:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Have to agree with Milowent, the legislative changes alone make this worth keeping. There have been developments in court and news articles as recent as this week which means it's an event which is still very much in the public eye. The article does need work but I don't feel that is cause for deletion when all that is needed is some attention from an experienced editor. JoeSnarl (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * comment. Recentism, recentism, recentism. How many wikipedia editors lack a historical perspective. Look at one of the people who voted to keep above. 'Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway." Is Wikipedia a encyclopedia or news archive? A fire that kills three people isn't encyclopedic.- William 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many editors lack historical perspective. Unfortunately, in fact, many are biased against recent events because they assume them not to be notable when similar events from long ago are indeed remembered. I.e., folks like Sam Patch who did nothing more than jump off a few things are remembered and celebrated close to 200 years after their death for what is basically something very silly.  Or Reuel Colt Gridley.  Or Francine Gottfried.  Or Sawing off of Manhattan Island.  If these people were around today, their articles would decried as BLP1Es and WP:RECENT problems. The mere fact that three people died, by itself, may not be sufficient.  But the greater implications of an event can far exceed the death toll of it.  Famously, for example, the Boston Massacre only involved the death of five civilians.  Surely that was a non-notable event, right?  Of course not.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * These events and people are remembered 200 years after their times. Although they are about relatively obscure topics that factor is a good indicator for their notability. I wonder if people will (other than descendants of those involved) will be talking about the Penhallow Hotel fire after a similar length of time. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Milowent, I hate it when you get involved in these things since you often make me rethink my position. Damn you! I don't yet, however, see such significant sourcing to change my mind--it's in the nature of such events to generate at least some coverage, but for me it's not quite enough. Did it effect anything outside of those involved? New regulations, new measures? If that happens it's notable, usually--"greater implications." All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Recentism? It happened in 2007 and years later it gets coverage.  And what you consider encyclopedic differs from what others consider it.  Nothing gained by deleting this.  Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space.   D r e a m Focus  15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG with it's coverage in reliable, third party sources. The whole "it's getting coverage 4 years later" stuff makes me disagree with any claims of recentism. Sergecross73   msg me   19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Legislation often gets changed as a result of media attention because politicians are wary of the "public opinion" (ie: what the press writes about). So this can go on in circles. And of course there will be articles like "5 years ago, a hotel fire killed 3 people...." because that's easy filling for a paper or site. But that doesn't show lasting notabily. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quote from reliable source The Cornishman: "The first member of the emergency services at the scene of the worst hotel fire in the UK for 40 years has described the early stages of the blaze as "complete chaos".", which describes the fire as the worst in the UK for 40 years. This further conveys topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete _ Poorly written.184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - That is not an appropriate reason for deletion, and the above user has been warned about this type of behavior before. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The delete !vote above about prose style of the article isn't valid grounds for deletion of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Going by this ip's edit history and talk page I would have a hard time assuming good faith for this vote anyway.Fraggle81 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above IP is currently range blocked due to extensive disruptive editing, (See here and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 - This is an example of one of many ways he's been disruptive; he keeps on following around Salvidrim and I and making invalid, bad faith !votes at AFDs. Sergecross73   msg me   23:08, 28 December 2011 (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.