Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perm Lame Horse club 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   speedy keep. I'm going to close this one a bit early, as there are already a large number of comments to keep the article. That in and of itself is not nearly a strong enough reason, but the article is linked to from the main page (and was before the AfD started), which fits Speedy Keep criterion 5. NW ( Talk ) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perm Lame Horse club fire

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper Bravedog (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I knew this was going to come out sooner or later. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.  I voted keep in the Balloon boy article because there was more to the article than news about the boy.  It was a unique event with hoax allegations (and later confirmed) ect.  This is just the run of the mill club fire that killed 100.  There is nothing encyclopedic about this article that would support keeping it here.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: TParis00ap speaks my mind more clearer than Lenin did with his theory of communism.  -Pickbothmanlol-   15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; TParis00ap has it down to a tee. Wiki isn't a newspaper, but this article reads like something from one. Non-notable event. 94.1.148.162 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) — 94.1.148.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep: This is a highly significant event. It may also lead to legal reform as to banning of such fireworks from closed areas. There was involvement at the highest political levels in the affair. Plus the event is substantiated by a lot of media attention and references. werldwayd (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird. The article doesn't say that. 94.1.148.162 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This user says that it "may" lead to changes in the law. This isn't a reason to keep as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bravedog (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is no less significant than the Rhode Island fire earlier this decade and is This event is receiving significant coverage in highly respectable news organizations. The fire has caused Russia to declare a national day of mourning (and the cancellation of quite a few events) and to address building code violations immediately. Any event that causes significant national action is notable. Vulture19 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is no less significant than the Rhode Island fire earlier" violates WP:WAX. Bravedog (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And it is classic OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because one article exists isn't an argument for another article.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In an attempt to avoid the OTHERSTUFFEXISTStrep I purposely did not cite that article itself. However, if my reasoning is going to be reduced to the first statement, I will strike it out. Vulture19 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This article involves the death of over 100 people because of a fireworks display gone awry. This is unique in Russia as it is the highest death toll since the fall of communism. It also is significant in that the whole display will probably lead to changes in law as people will be outraged. The Station fire would've gone through a similar deletion process, but the fact that it was created after the law changing thing kept it from being deleted. I also don't like how I wasn't notified of this deletion, as I created the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've made 16 edits - 15 of which were marked as minor. Why should you be notified? Bravedog (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have it set to be minor. Looking back, most of them should be marked as major. Sorry, but I think all deletions should involve notifying the editors/creator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a violation of WP:CANVAS. And you can't blame others because you marked your edits incorrectly. Bravedog (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is in no way a violation of canvass. A violation would be asking other editors who have never edited the page and asking them what they think on this discussion. It's a common courtesy to do this to the creator of the page. I was also not blaming others in any way, in fact I was blaming myself. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is borderline violating WP:CANVAS. If the nominator notified all the editors, there would be an overwhelming support while those that may disagree with keeping the article would have no way to be notified.  It is generally better to notify the creator and significant contributors instead of everyone who even made minor edits.  Canvassing is canvassing even if you canvass against yourself.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Should an article under considering for deletion be removed from the "In the News" section of the front page? Vulture19 (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. Bravedog (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but this is a unique thing so I'm going to bring this up to the appropriate people now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, they had an AFD earlier today and the vote was to keep it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Link? Bravedog (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be the place, but assuming that you accidentally added an AFD decision template to the page, there is an administrators notice on the page noting that. Oddly, it should've taken place here, so I have no clue to where it went. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You accidentally did add the old AFD template. I removed it. No harm done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as this is a significant event with international coverage. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply as that is mainly for WP:BLP articles and for minor stories (announcements, etc). This clearly goes beyond that. The article clearly passes WP:EVENT.  freshacconci  talk talk  17:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — freshacconci  talk talk  17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Biting my tongue to assume this was a good-faith nom. We have many articles about similar events; I don't know how you could claim this wasn't notable. Not only is there the coverage in international news, three-digit death tolls in nightclub fires are unusual in and of themselves. The Station fire was inarguably notable; so too was the Happy Land fire. Both were the deadliest fires in particular jurisdictions (Rhode Island and the Bronx); so too is this the deadliest fire in the (admittedly short) history of the Russian Federation. Frankly, this almost seems to be to an inclusionist parody of an AfD nom. Using WP:WAX and WP:OTHERSTUFF as broadly as the delete !voters are in this case is like saying that just because we have an article about George Harrison it doesn't necessarily follow that we should have an article about Ringo Starr. Can we please close this as a strong keep and get back to writing and improving the encyclopedia? Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Speaking of AGF, this nominating editor also nominated Jimmy Wales for deletion. Now that was two years ago, and we all makes mistakes, but...  freshacconci  talk talk  17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you would even suggest the nominator didn't nominate in good faith. Especially since I agree with the nominator.  This is one of those things that is borderline notable by policies and different people will have different opinions.  I personally feel it would be better suited for Wikinews until such a time as it makes a notable impact other than being a news event.  Some of the arguments are that it will have future notability, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't see how you would even suggest the nominator didn't nominate in good faith. Especially since I agree with the nominator." Well, that's prett solid logic! Sure has me convinced. "This is one of those things that is borderline notable by policies and different people will have different opinions." And that's why we have AfDs. If consensus goes against you, maybe you should admit you misread policy. "I personally feel it would be better suited for Wikinews until such a time as it makes a notable impact other than being a news event." And the rest of us disagree. Perhaps the development of Wikinews would have gone differently if some sort of clear policy decision had been on this point a long time ago, but that's water under the bridge. "Some of the arguments are that it will have future notability ..." It has present notability as the worst fire in post-Communist Russia. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant. Would you have nominated this for deletion within the days after the event occurred? By your logic it should have been deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really wondering if someone's trying to make a point. Same editor has also been active at this "are you kidding?" AfD of something else that was on the Main Page. Interestingly, that one was nominated by, an account created in the last two weeks that promptly began tagging lots of articles for deletion. I wonder what Checkuser might find? Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I said I don't see how you could see possible bad faith and I should have expanded to say that not everyone disagrees with him. I considered AfDing it myself. The !vote is currently 7/4 in favor of keeping so not everyone disagrees with me.  Would I have nominating Sept 11 for deletion?  Probobly not.  As I !voted in favor of keeping Balloon boy, I do see the value in certain news stories.  I just haven't seen it here yet. --TParis00ap (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support checkuser as the nominator may be a 'bad hand' account used for deletion nominations, which is all it is used for. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting more interesting. A review of their respective contribs finds that since the GaGaOohLaLa account was created on 11/25, it and Bravedog have never been logged on at the same time. Yet they have contributed to the several of the same AfDs, not all of them having to do with Lady GaGa. There's already been an AN/I in which socking was suspected, but no puppeteer was identified and it focused mainly on GaGa's allegedly disruptive behavior. I'm not sure I have the time. Do you want to start the SPI or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - There is no reason to delete this article. 110 deaths it's for me too much! TouLouse (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BIGNUMBER type of !vote. Can you support your position better?--TParis00ap (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, as stated above, the significance of the number isn't just the number but the fact that it's the deadliest fire in the history of post-Soviet Russia. See the forest for the trees. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale is still using the WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:ILIKEIT. "100 people like me so I deserve an article."  Consensus should be dirived with policy support, not how much you like the subject.  The editor said "110 votes it's for me too much"--TParis00ap (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wish deletion nominators could restrain themselves from such early nominations, and also realise that articles about events are allowed in Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS is not a blanket ban, see WP:EVENT (now a guideline). This is a major disaster for Russia. The President has declared a day of national mourning on Monday (which has lead to the cancellation of an event involving the Indian Prime Minister) and there are three days of mourning in the Perm region. It may have a lasting effect on Russian fire regulations, which are notoriously lax ("Medvedev demanded that lawmakers draft changes to toughen the criminal punishment for failing to comply with fire safety standards"), and a ban on the use of fireworks at public venues has just been announced by Emergencies Minister Sergey Shoygu. The Greek and Ukrainian governments have made statements about this event, and it has received massive attention in the worldwide press. It has been directly compared to The Station nightclub fire: "The Perm fire seemed to be similar to one that occurred in Rhode Island in 2003 when pyrotechnics at a rock concert touched off a blaze that killed 100 people." Forget WP:WAX, deleting this would just be reinforcing our systemic bias against non-US events. This is far from run-of-the-mill. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, these sorts of events have a visceral notability. The Station nightclub fire was never nominated for deletion, and later they made an hour long documentary about it. The See also list in that article has a couple dozen others that could all be nominated for deletion too, under the flawed notnews argument. In Articles for deletion/Belarus mental hospital fire, a lesser known event survived deletion. So we have ample precedent to keep this one, and to avoid WP:Systemic bias we should. Glittering Pillars (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2009 (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.