Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabongari fire outbreak


 * 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   delete. Consensus appears clear after relisting. -- Kinu  t/c 07:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sabongari fire outbreak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to be of lasting importance. Got a bunch of local/Nigerian coverage on the day it happened (two days ago), but seems unlikely to have sustained coverage as nobody died, and it wasn't a terrorist attack or anything. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE events that receive a brief news spike are "likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep: per significant coverages in reliable sources. Subject of the article obviously meet WP:GNG. The time of event occurrence is irrelevant and certainly not a valid argument for articles deletion but its notability per significant coverages in reliable source (if in doubt). Its an intrusive shock to see a rationale like but seems unlikely to have sustained coverage as nobody died, and it wasn't a terrorist attack or anything despite the multiple coverages in WP:RS such as This Nigeria tell Newspaper, channels tv,Nigerian bulletin, The punch Newspaper ,Leadership Newspaper, Nigerian Tribune among others with a quick Google search. An event doesn't have to result in deaths to meet WP:GNG and doesn't have to be a terrorist attack to be a subject of encyclopedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 09:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: I hereby flag this discussion to speedy keep per WP:SK. The nominator had failed to advance an argument for the article deletion. The article seemed not to be a candidate for deletion in the first instance and the nominator's rationale for deletion is not a policy-based rationale. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "not of lasting importance". There is no requirement that I link directly to the relevant policies, however since you ask. Per Deletion_policy #8 is meeting the relevant notability guidelines, and the relevant criteria WP:EVENTCRIT specifically discusses "enduring historical significance" and "lasting effect", "widespread impact" in particular WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE specifically discusses events that receive a brief news spike and says they are "likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article"Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your recently modified rationale, there are in-depth coverages of the subject beyond a mere "brief news spike". However, WP:EVENT is an alternatve to WP:GNG. It seems you had misunderstood WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. By the way, What is your interpretation of "lasting importance"? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 07:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fires in crowded markets are a dime-a-dozen; even spectacular ones shouldn't rate articles for WP:PERSISTENCE reasons. Even massive deadly fires are often forgotten by RS beyond their current news cycle. Fires are the most common form of piece-meal property destruction. Pax 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The only coverage I could find was on the day of the event and the day after. No followup in the nearly four weeks since. The event seems to have caused a lot of property damage but had no sustained impact. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NEVENT. No continued coverage. Per WP:NOTNEWS. 04:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Carter (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per MelanieN/CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2015 (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.