Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain B nightclub 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain B nightclub fire

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

That a fire occurred in a nightclub does not make that fire notable. Fires, like bus accidents, occur all the time, and though tragic, they are not usually considered notable unless the death toll is unusually high or the fire occurred for unusual reasons. Neither seems to be the case here. WP:NOTNEWS. A loose necktie (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, although it's a very sad event, it is one for the newspapers, not here. We should cover fires of this sort only if they have sustained consequences, repercussions that turn them into broadly notable events rather than personal tragedies. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added this to Current Events, this morning, and although an obviously tragic event it is, however, not deserving of its own page. MattSucci (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a double-digit death toll. The fire took longer to extinguish because of flammable soundproofing material in the building. It's nothing like a standard house fire with a single-digit death toll. There's no minimum death toll needed to establish notability & many of our articles about fires had low-double-digit death tolls. What are you saying isn't the case in regard to this fire that is in regard to the dozens of other fires that have their own WP articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We require sustained news coverage of the event, I can barely find anything about it, one mention in the New York Post. It barely got noticed in the first place. Can barely get coverage at all, it won't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Bangkok Post? It seems problematic to use the New York Post as a standard here.--66.76.243.26 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources other than the one given in the article. Unfortunate but the news cycle has moved on it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue - it's covered by many mainstream media sources, including CNN, Al Jazeera, Reuters & NPR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you want me to review them for sources, post links to the articles, not to their Wikipedia pages please. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It took me seconds to find those [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep, ~~per nom.~~ Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been significantly improved. Changing to a keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per latest edit by me. As the the author of the counterpart article on Thai Wikipedia, I have translated it to English. Many sources are available and investigations are still ongoing (plus, corruption is highly suspected by the media as well - leading to even more investigations into the incidence), of course, mostly in Thai. IMO, It is a "notable enough" incident as it had two digits deaths and was the first of its kind in the given region. Such incident is rare in Thailand and has since sparked widespread debates and talks on Thai media. Please allow me to fix the article and please kindly provide me recommendations for the article to be improved. Thank you. --Chainwit. (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it be better to wait a little, until the long-term significance and notability of the event are clear? We have the luxury that unlike a newspaper, we are not obliged to be up-to-the-minute. I would be prepared to consider draftification instead of deletion. Elemimele (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion could include it being too short & not having many sources. Those can no longer be argued. Its quality is good enough for mainspace. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the article is, to say the least, poorly written and drawn out to an unnecessary extent solely in order to try and pass it off as adequate, which in my opinion it doesn't even come close to being. MattSucci (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that's better, the article has been expanded from the one line it was this AM. Sources are all in Thai, I'm not this invested to go through them one by one. I still find no sources about it, leaning delete (still). Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was never one line; it was three when I created it. The UK source I used - The Independent - has been repeatedly removed. Many reliable mainstream sources outside Thailand are covering it, including Al Jazeera, the BBC, CBS, CNN, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters & The Washington Post. I don't know why you're claiming that there's a lack of media coverage of it. Enter Thailand fire into Google & you'll see the coverage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if the discussions on (1) "possible a corruption case" (of course, await further investigations) (2) "similarities to the 2009 Bangkok nightclub fire" - stirring criticisms and (3) "being the first disaster to occurred in the district" would suffice the notability of the article (which is the reason the article was put for deletion). These are all the topics I found interesting and have so far made the case relatively more notable in comparison to countless other fires with similar death tolls in Thailand. If these aren't the case, then proceed the deletion process as I cannot find any further interesting notes in the incidence. Ps, if it's the case that this cannot be an article on its own; is it possible to have the content included in maybe related articles Santika Club fire or Sattahip District? --Chainwit. (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the result of this AfD, this fire should be briefly mentioned in the History section of Sattahip district. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree with Jim Michael. If this gets deleted, the nightclub fire should still be at least mentioned in the Sattahip District article. Vida0007 (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it happened today? I'd suggest we draftify to see where it goes and what happens, it could be something big, or nothing. It's almost too soon to tell. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once-in-a-decade disaster in Thailand which has been dominating the national headlines, and can easily be expected to be in the news for weeks and months going forward. It is not possible to predict WP:SUSTAINED coverage in the future, but a case such as this is very likely to have WP:LASTING effects. If that turns out not to be the case, it can be AfDed then. WP:EVENT#Don't rush to delete articles. PS The comparison to bus accidents is actually quite illuminating. A bus accident with a similar death toll wouldn't register as they occur all the time in Thailand. Contrarily, a fire such as this is a very significant event, and shows why the death toll doesn't matter in establishing notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This stands to be a very significant news, especially Thailand, given nightclub disasters seems to be one of a kind there. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, I think this is pretty significant. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it doesn't matter what users here think, the topic has garnered "significant coverage in reliable sources". Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.