Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 San Bruno fire

2010 San Bruno fire

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Citing the original creator of the article: "waiting for the deletion discussion in which someone will mention WP:NOTNEWS without actually having read it". I did read it, and I don't foresee historical significance more than a few broken houses. Diego Grez (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice - delete per the nominators rationale, no historical significance beyond immediate damage. 6 months down the line, this'll be a memory. Barking Fish 22:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, it is in the news right now. But I think the incident has attained notability since it is reported by major news sources such as BBC and CNN. Plus, this is the first major explosion in the area in recent history. I say this definitely has "historical significance". If the incident where a gay flight attendant yelled out profanity on the plane then grabbed a beer and escaped via a slide got an article, then this should get an article.—Chris!_c/t 22:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is on the news now. What about in three months? Four months? A year? It will be forgotten quickly. It's just an insignificant accident. We got here in Chile like two earlier this year. Did they got an article? I'm sure they did not. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Diego Grez (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Diego. Chrishomingtang - Using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS at an AFD is not great. Each article is assessed on its own merits, just because something else equally shite exists, doesn't mean we need more. Barking Fish 23:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I bet it will be in the news again as the cause of the explosion revealed and ensuing lawsuits unfolded. The angry flight attendant incident will be forgotten in several months, yet it got an article. I knew about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I am just trying to show how events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia. —Chris!_c/t 23:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as my argument for keep. I am just mentioning that a lot of events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 23:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate them for deletion then! --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he nominate them for deletion if he's arguing for keep on this one? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he said "that a lot of events without historical significance got to be in Wikipedia." --Diego Grez (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nominate them because consensus has already been established in most cases. One example was JetBlue Flight 1052, which was kept after a lebgthy afd, drv and yet another afd.—Chris!_c/t 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that's a serious problem. Wikipedia should not be writing articles for events that happened 15 minutes ago, as I mentioned before, Wikinews is the proper place for such articles. I agree it is a bit hard to write there first, but that's the place they should be, not here. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Try to go against consensus and afd them all yourself. Good luck with that.—Chris!_c/t 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If this was merely another fire I might agree that it should be deleted. But the nominator has, for some reason, chosen to minimize the scale of the disaster. "a few broken houses"?? Try again. Furthermore, the fires were the result of a natural gas pipeline explosion, which is very far from an everyday event and immediately sets this apart from ordinary fire stories. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the historical significance of the event? Wikinews is the news source. Wikipedia is not supposed to do reports on news events unless historical significance is asserted, which in this case it has not been. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historical significance has not been asserted! Please, read my comments again since I have clearly explained why it has historical significance.—Chris!_c/t 23:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few reliable sources right 2 days from the incident and that's historical significance? Nope. Historical significance has to be asserted in a matter of months or years. This event happened just 2/3 days ago. It is much better suited for Wikinews than Wikipedia, because of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikinews is the news organization, this is the encyclopedia. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because "this event happened just 2/3 days ago", this deletion debate is a nonsense. How can you assess historical significance if this just happen?—Chris!_c/t 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because of "How can you assess historical significance if this just happen", the article shouldn't have been created in the first place. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't even assess historical significance, then how can you say this is insignificant? You are basically saying your deletion reason at the top is nonsense.
Bearing in mind that a similar event, the Buncefield fire, is a Good article, it might be worth holding off judgment until we can properly assess its historical significance. But do note that there has been massive destruction of property and a state of emergency has been declared, which does imply that the event is notable. At the very least it should be merged to San Bruno, California. Fences&Windows 23:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Buncefield fire resulted in zero deaths, while the Lasting effects of the 2010 San Bruno fire include at least 4 deaths and 38 destroyed homes. Further, we expect legal and maybe even political effects here; if nothing does happen in terms of lawsuits and regulatory changes, then delete the article. And I don't buy the argument "We had similar incidents in Chile but there are no articles." Then create the article! I won't AfD it! Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, they have no historical significance more than a few deaths and some broken private homes. This one has no historical significance either. Diego Grez (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you have repeated this assertion, please enlighten us as to the nature of these purportedly similar inicidents in Chile. How many of them involved natural gas pipeline explosions in urban areas? Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Bruno, California. Information on what schools are closed, what blood type is needed, and where shelters are being set up is insignificant. The incident to the city of San Bruno is significant and the amount of coverage it has received warrants mention in the main article. If that expands over time, then a split may be needed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A merge debate is a little soon imo since this just happened.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - A merge to San Bruno, California is the most reasonable thing I've heard in this debate. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in WP:RS, and a major event. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources have covered what is Gordon Brown's favourite cookie. Should we have an article for it?. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ridiculous apple and orange comparison! That is insignificant trivial info. This is a major disaster.—Chris!_c/t 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... I reiterate. What is the historical significance? Historical significance happens to appear just after some time from the event, but Wikipedia's problem is to write articles about news that should not be here, but on Wikinews. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I repeat. Read my comment again if you can't see the historical significance. I already explained.—Chris!_c/t 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sourcing, important in this part of the world. Systemic bias works both ways. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although NOTNEWS is a vaild argument, take into account a few things. (I'm sure you'll cite WP:CRYSTAL, but here goes) Right now there are 5-6 dead, more in burn centers, over fifty houses destroyed in a giant fireball, hundreds of other homes destroyed. Additionally PG&E was cited in May by the NTSB for having poor inspections, in the same area. Doubtlessly some sort of controversy will ensure for PG&E, and could quite possibly end up with a shakeup of the industry. Experts on TV (and probably soon in papers) are raising concerns about the fact that there are gas lines under all of us. I find it funny that you just created an article an earthquake that killed one person due to heart attack. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it did not happen 5 minutes ago... --Diego Grez (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So. a 20-year old insignificant event has historical significance. While a 2 days old major significant event has no historical significance. You are contradicting yourself, LOL.—Chris!_c/t 00:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No I'm not. That event happened in the middle of a "seismic swarm" that triggered that and many other earthquakes. It was/is of historical significance, and that can be proven. It is also one of the strongest earthquakes in the world and in Chile. This event, by contrast, happened just some days ago and the historical significance that these kind of events gain can't be achieved in such a short period of time. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, a disaster where a single human being died indirectly is never going to be significant in history. No matter how you stretch it.—Chris!_c/t 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - To User:NativeForeigner. I really think 1985 Pichilemu earthquake should be deleted. But I don't want to start the afd myself since I don't it to be seen as a retaliation.—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further convinced to keep because of the fact that there is huge depth of coverage. Just channel surfed and found reports regarding it (all about 10 minutes) on the channels of FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC and BBC. It was briefly mentioned on arirang (korean channel) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - these types of deletion discussions are often premature. It's hard to tell if it's a case of recentism or something that will end up having longer-term merit. It'd be much easier to discuss deletion in a month. tedder (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thinking about it that's the same point I'm trying to make in my keep vote: we can't tell whether it will have an impact right now, but it looks like there is a large possibility. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a notable event, and has importance to several other articles including Pacific Gas & Electric, the main San Bruno article, among others. And seriously? Consensus was to keep an article about that huge traffic jam in China last month? This is certainly more significant than that. Seeyardee (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]