Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22nd and Market building collapse

22nd and Market building collapse

22nd and Market building collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, this is a news story, there is no lasting encyclopedic significance to this event. LGA _talk^edits 11:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

With WP:CRYSTAL in mind, we cannot predict whether there will be any lasting encyclopedic significance. The question is not whether there will be significance in the future, but whether there is encyclopedic significance now. Let's go through the standard test under WP:Notability (events):

• Lasting effects: No current indication of lasting effects.
• Geographical scope: The story has received nation-wide coverage.
• Depth of coverage: ???
• Duration of coverage: Unpredictable.
• Diversity of sources: Many different news agencies are covering the event.

I'd say that on the whole, the story does not seem like an obvious candidate for deletion, but not like an obvious keeper either. I would not rush to delete it; give it some more time to allow for better analysis of significance. Knight of Truth (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: How often do buildings collapse in the USA and kill many people? Especially due to human error and/or workplace accidents (as opposed to earthquakes and such)? Notable. Keep. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That an event is rare does not make it notable. Rare events happen all the time. However, significant lasting coverage of the event (which may originate from its rarity) can make it notable. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree. We are essentially saying the same thing. In this case, the event was extremely rare; that rarity led to significant coverage by reliable sources; that coverage rendered notability. We are in agreement, and we are saying the same thing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep for now - as per usual, someone has nominated an article on a news story for deletion claiming it hasn't demonstrated lasting significance, before it's had the chance to do so. It's too soon to declare this event to be non-notable when it happened less than a week ago. My inclination would be that it will prove to be notable - as Joseph Spadaro observes, events like this are rare - but this AFD is way too premature to make that judgement. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - As above stated, it's still a new event. Also it's notable as a serious construction error that normally happen in the US. I don't see how rarity isn't notable. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep for now - It seems like every time a non-terrorist accident (I suppose that's redundant; if terrorists did it, it wouldn't be an accident) happens, someone creates an article about it and someone else takes it to AfD to say that there's no lasting coverage. I believe that this will prove to be notable enough, but we can't really tell when the event happened four days ago. We may want to move it to the current redirect 2013 Philadelphia building collapse. God willing, another one won't happen at least this year, so there won't be any confusion. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. This incident was just a crane driver having a bad day at the office, nothing notable or significant. The article breaches the guidelines WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:LASTING. (We don't put up an article and "hope" the issue may have lasting consequences, we create the article if and when lasting significance is demonstrated.) WWGB (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I would oppose creating this article because lasting significance has not been demonstrated, but I wouldn't be so quick to delete what has come to be a halfway decent article. It would surely be inefficient to delete it now and perhaps revive it a week or two later. Can we perhaps agree to postpone the deletion discussion until we have a clearer picture of the event's impact?"Knight of Truth (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It will take more than one week for this AfD to be discussed. I'm sure the closing admin will take "potential lasting significance" into consideration. WWGB (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient casualties to remain notable. I agree with RiverClan's suggested move; people will remember the city, not the street address. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Made national news. I got two alerts from CNN about it. Most everything CNN sends alerts for is notable. 2001:558:6027:7F:31D2:23E:C93F:F45E (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)