Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virar hospital 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. ✗ plicit  13:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Virar hospital fire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a newspaper CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hospital fire with double-digit death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Double digit death toll is a huge deal. If (very big if) the articles quality and information was to improve a decent amount, this could be an ITN nominations just due to the death toll. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elijahandskip Please read our Policy NOTNEWS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am very aware of that policy. For the last year, I have been a major participant in WikiProject Current events as well as being the editor who revived the WikiProject last year.  Articles like 2021 Guangzhou bombing only had 5 deaths and very little information, but highly qualified for an article and was mentioned on the Portal:Current events.  I would actually ask you to read your own advice and read what Wikipedia is and is not.  A general rule of thumb that I have learned & adapted during the last year is 4 deaths is about what it takes for an article.  Less than 4 deaths depends on the situation, injuries, and stuff.  Like if a politician is killed, but only 3 deaths happen (referring to Killing of Luca Attanasio), that still received an article due to the situation.  For this article, double digit deaths instantly qualify for an article.  Hopefully that helps. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Elijahandskip First of all I ask you kindly to watch your tone. Secondly you still did not explain in which policy do we mention that at least any press release with more than 4 deaths is automatically establishing notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn’t an “official” policy. I was trying to say there is an “unofficial” policy used among editors.  The fact that Wikipedia allows articles with 3-5 deaths, I cannot see how a 13 death event would not be notable.  Just saying. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, my tone wasn't meant to be in a mean way. I see how you thought it was, but it wasn't.  I would also like for you to see my bolded comment below, as it relates to our conversation. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep notable event making headlines internationally. Depressed Desi (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Depressed Desi Please read our Content Policy NOTNEWS CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. It simply doesn't meet either the event or coverage requirements set out at WP:EVENT. This is good example of the type of event that WP:NOTNEWS warns against.
 * There is no death-count exception for non-notable events to be include in Wikipedia. At most, that's an argument that it should have been more widely reported and commented on, which would make it notable; but it's not a substitute for notability. (And the ""double-digit" characterization seems calculated to imply a much larger number anyway; 13 is barely into the two-digit range.)
 * I could imagine that the fire may become notable in the future (for example, if there are regulatory changes as a result of it; or it it becomes widely covered by third-party sources other than as simple news reporting); but that's not the case today, and may never be. TJRC (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how this is not notable. Deaths can make things notable, but not always.  Socola hospital fire had 1 death and 0 injured. Sultanah Aminah Hospital had 6 killed and 4 injured. Gaziantep hospital fire had 9 killed.  When I can easily find 3 articles about hospital fires that have less deaths than this one, no one can tell me this isn't notable.  Just saying... Elijahandskip (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Deaths don't inherently make events notable as Wikipedia uses that term. Deaths may make something worth covering in third-party sources; and it is that coverage that may make the event notable for purposes of Wikipedia. But the notability is a reflection of the coverage, not of the number of deaths.
 * Without expressing any opinion on the notability or non-notability of the other fires you point to... the fact that this fire has more deaths than those fires is a completely immaterial fact to determining inclusion. There is no death-count criterion for inclusion; inclusion based on notability. To say that these other notable fires have fewer deaths, so this fire must be notable based solely on the larger death-count is a non sequitur, because death-count is not and never has been an inclusion criterion. (Also: WP:WAX.)
 * The most charitable way to characterize this argument is that you're saying that, with so many deaths, one would expect it to get substantial non-news coverage, thereby making it notable; or that, in a just world, it would get get substantial non-news coverage, thereby making it notable. But those aren't the criteria. We reflect what actually does get substantial non-news coverage. TJRC (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: While I dont have anything to say with the ongoing dispute here with the number of deaths, Im with the opinion that this is definetely a notable event. As per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. This has been covered by several reputed national and international medias in depth. And I also believe this is not just a routine news coverage about an accident as it has caught the attention of entire nation. This was even the prime-time debate topic in some reputed new channels in my state of Kerala. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 01:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am really surprised about reading this, @Kashmorwiki - so you are really of the opinion that this hospital fire is of "lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)" (cited by the Policy you mentioned) CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I actually didnt meant the full sentence in this guideline. I just wanted to show a part of it here it here so that I copy pasted. Apologies if that was a mistake and made you confused. Actually I just wanted to show that this accident and has been covered widely in several parts of my country by giving that much significance. I am not sure whether this would have as much lasting significance when compared to some other accidents. But you might not be having some idea about whats actually going on in my country now. While my state does not have that much problem, patients from these states like Maharashtra are dying without getting any sufficient oxygen. Along with that, when a tragedy like this happens, how can I say this does not have any significance. Some reports are also coming out like this which says that hospital took almost half an hour to call fire brigade. Several medias including some international ones have already criticised governtments for this accident. While some politicians says this is not a national news due to their political motives, I believe this has that much significance and does not comes under WP:NOTNEWS. Thats why I voted as Keep. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kashmorwiki I am really concerned - I am having a very good idea of India miss-management of Covid in the last weeks, of course it is a tragedy but every tragedy which occurs in the world does not have sufficient notability for an article at Wikipedia - please think again if this is a single event which is LASTING and HISTORICAL. This is clearly not the case here. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above statements. This should be notable. Swordman97  talk to me  05:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Swordman97 We do not publish Articles which should be notable, our goal is to have published only articles which are notable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Does anyone really believe that an article about a verifiable hospital fire with this number of deaths would not be kept, regardless of any sourcing beyond verifiability, if the fire happened in the UK or in the US? Of course it would be kept, and by WP:SNOW, so what is it about this one that says otherwise? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Phil Bridger This is an quite interesting argument - are you trying to say that the article would not have been nominated by me if it would be an American hospital? I have to disappoint you, i would have nominated it as well and I am somewhat confused about editors who think that Wikipedia should be used as a newspaper, for which reason do exactly we have the WP:NOTNEWS Policy ?. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is well beyond a mere news story. Had this happened in the Western world, the article would be multiple times as long & a discussion such as this would have been quickly closed with a consensus to keep. Jim Michael (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , also have a look at this second criteria in the notability guideline; Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. I am pretty sure this accident satisfies this as this were widely covered nationwide in diverse sources with that much significance. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 00:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it meets those criteria. Nowhere in the world are hospital fires with double-digit death tolls a common, ordinary or trivial occurrence. Jim Michael (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * CommanderWaterford, I have no doubt that you would personally be even-handed and nominate such an article about an American hospital. I do not however, think that the outcome would be the same. I agree that WP:NOTNEWS should be followed, but some time ago there was a discussion about that policy, in which I argued that it should be followed in such cases, but the outcome was that most editors thought that news sources should be accepted. That is the consensus, much as I don't agree with it, so it should apply to the whole world equally. I'm afraid that I can't link to the discussion without spending more time than I have available now to look for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC) And please, someone, fix the indentation here
 * Keep. Widely covered, still covered as I type this, unusual event with a double digit death toll. Very likely this will see continuing coverage.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep covered by both local and international sources and I think it will have enduring notability. If it doesn't, we can always renominate it for deletion a few years from now.VR talk 15:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep same reasons as above 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 17:41, 28 April 2021 (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.