Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Valencia residential building fire

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a lot to say about this AFD. First, I think it is really out-of-line to nominate an article for an AFD discussion 16 minutes after it has been created and it results in an outcome like this. What an article looks like in the first hour of its life is very different from what it looks like 7 days later. This conduct should be discouraged unless the content has serious problems like vandalism or BLP violations. If this happens regularly, a visit to ANI could be warranted.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not individual editors here think this event is or isn't notable or counting up how many people died in a disaster, we make these decisions by what reliable sources say and so far, I don't see anyone arguing for Deletion challenging the sources brought up by those editors advocating Keeping this article.

If the coverage isn't SUSTAINED, it might be warranted to return to AFD for this article but based on this discussion, I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Valencia residential building fire[edit]

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

2024 Valencia residential building fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING article created by this contributor, no indication of notability CutlassCiera 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i realize that he did this twice today, i think a complaint should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Lukt64 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator seems to have a problem with creating WP:NOTNEWS failing articles and one sentence vehicle accident articles. If this continues without their response I will take this to ANI. CutlassCiera 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with the vehicle ones i understand but some of these incidents are notable and i do try and expand on them however some get speedy deletions like this right now once more information comes out i can add on Dubstar44 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest keeping in the draft space until the subject is more notable? waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
being as you have put all of my recent articles for deletion without looking further and looking at the basics I feel it is sort of personal that you are deciding to nominate my articles for deletion especially seeing that you looked back a year to see me creating vehicle accident articles mainly in the Philippines that is not in mu opinion relevant here as I am providing a basic paragraph saying what has happened in the article adding the references adding the event of how and what happened and if the article is notable enough to be seen by an official member like a president of a country that should be notable as it is an acknowledged Incident by a leader of a country. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I caution Cutlass and Lukt64 to use Dubstar44’s talk page, followed by dispute resolution if that doesn’t help, before turning to ANI. A threat to a 'complaint to ANI' is disturbing and gut-wrenching for a Wiki user, I’m sure we’ve all had the threat wavered over our heads, and it’s no shallow one. Let’s be civil. We all have one clear goal editing Wikipedia. I have made comments on a draft space article of Dubstar44’s, and also posted some comments on their talk page. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When BBC News covers an incident in Spain, that's a pretty strong hint that the topic is notable. The corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia is much longer and has several references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to this statement as bbc normally only cover notable incidents and the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself Dubstar44 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    " the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself" No that is a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you look at the Wikipedia list of building or structure fires, ones that do have an article have either more societal impact or deaths.Yxuibs (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The incident has happened recently and with cutlass ceearing this deletion the article was up for no more than 15 minutes allowing no time for the article to be expanded on. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that BBC covers it doesn't necessarily add to notability. Revisit in 6 months to see if this fire has an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Currently 4 people are confirmed dead and 19 others are missing, which could make it one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history. It's already being reported as the most serious fire in Valencia since the 19th century and the story is dominating Spanish news media. This easily passes notability. I also think articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion when the incident itself has not even concluded yet, as doing so only discourages people who make a sincere effort to write something. At least give it some time. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, we definitely don't document every event with 4 deaths. What next a traffic accident with 4 deaths covering in the media? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A large fire potentially killing up to 23 people and leaving hundreds of people homeless is not at all comparable to a traffic accident. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "potentially killing up to 23 people". Now you're WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Spanish firefighters have said they don't expect to find the 19 missing people alive, so yes that would be up to 23 killed. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still speculation. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's relevant to the discussion when it's coming from an official source. There's really no need to delete an article while the event is still ongoing. Although I would still vote keep even if the death toll remained the same. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should reread WP:N and WP:NEVENT before commenting on AfDs like this. Nothing you're saying is actually relevant to whether this article is notable or non-notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of WP:N and WP:NEVENT. My original comment said it was already the worst fire in the region since the 19th century, possibly one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history, and dominating Spanish media. It's also getting international coverage as noted by others. This event clearly passes all notability requirements. Even now, more than 24 hours later, it's still the top story on the BBC. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Being deadly means absolutely nothing in regard to the notability criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although not as serious as the Grenfell Tower fire, there is a significant number of deaths, with the toll likely to rise. The current death toll (mid-teens) is high enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked the death toll, right now it's 4 not mid teens. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I would be happy to reassess its notability in a few months, but it looks significant enough at the moment. Ron Oliver (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. It's WP:TOOSOON to say there's a lasting notability, and while there may be it's speculation to say there is, so draftifying instead of deleting makes sense to me, although a keep to evaluate again in a few months is also agreeable. Shaws username . talk . 11:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at more sources since my last !vote I'm more inclined that it does merit keeping, the BBC still has a live reporting page for it. There's widespread international coverage from the US, India, France, South Korea, Aljazeera, the Ledbury Reporter (which seems to be a local newspaper in England) and more. It remains to be seen if it's WP:SUSTAINED into the future but that can be looked at with an AfD in a few months. Shaws username . talk . 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to be a notable fire. It's very likely more information will become available of the aftermath and investigation. In this case WP:RUSHDELETE apply in my opinion. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scale of the devastation is too big and is a serious mass casualty incident. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep At 6 people dead right now, and over 10 more missing and presumed dead, it might be the deadliest fire in the history of València and the second-worst peacetime building fire in Spain after the 1979 Hotel Corona de Aragón fire. MaeseLeon (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep im changing my vote now that 6 people are dead and 10 are presumed dead Lukt64 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the number of people that died a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know. Either way, a fire which kills 10 people in a developed country like Spain is notable, especially as it has been covered by many international sources like BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera and ABC News (Australia). harrz talk 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know." Which is a reason for not keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fatal incident widely covered in international media. Parallels to Grenfell Tower fire have been noted in several articles already, sparking discussions on the use of cladding materials. Consider WP:SNOW close RWalen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 10 deaths in one of the most serious fires in Spain's recent history, with international coverage and with an article in good condition is notable. There would be no doubt if it had happened in Kansas City or Manchester. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This is a catastrophic fire that has killed at least 9 with many more missing. The fire echos back to the Grenfell Tower fire with two entire buildings engulfed and appears to have involved flammable cladding like the Grenfell Tower fire. This event is very significant and will likely go down in history as one of the worst fire in modern Spanish history. The fire has also been covered by media from around the world. User:Stormchaser246 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: 9 deaths + 1 missing, the worst accident of this kind in the Valencian Community and in the Spanish state for ages, echoes to the Grenfell Tower fire, international and foreign local media attention are enough reasons to keep it on the wiki. Had it happened in an Anglophone country we'd probably wouldn't even be discussing it. --Sacesss (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me. (The fact that the article was started by someone who has also started unrelated articles on non-notable subjects is irrelevant.)--A bit iffy (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me." is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should have worded that better. I meant "the unusually rapid spread", i.e. an exceptional event.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all noted above (death toll, reported worldwide, debate over cladding materials). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should we also create an article for this? China: 15 dead and dozens more injured in Nanjing flat fire LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely yes. As @Sacesss suggests, had it happened in Kansas City or Manchester instead of Nanjing, there would already be a 100 Kb article by now, and nobody disputing if it's notable enough. You're invited to start it. MaeseLeon (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already created Nanjing fire article in Chinese Wikipedia. The article about València residential complex fire at least has a cause and effect, and is not simply news.And a large scale fire will have investigation results in the future, so it is likely to be mentioned again in the future. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, far from local news, made the top bracket of the BBC home page. Ten deaths in a housing catastrophe in a developed country is far from usual. I have no doubts that if this had happened in Nowhere, Vermont and the in-depth sources were in English, this page would be 300k in length now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A misleading and unconstructive nomination containing a bad-faith attack on an editor. If a fire of this scale had occured in the UK or US there would be no credible suggestion of deletion and the article would be nearly unreadable in length. 2022 Bronx apartment fire was literally listed at ITN, not being nominated for deletion. Some editors need to understand systemic bias and stop trying to make the issue worse. AusLondonder (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unfounded accusation. At the time of nominating this article for deletion the death toll was marked as 4 and it was a stub with one source. The article when I nominated it I looked at the sources and noticed it was mainly routine coverage. After I nominated this article for deletion the article was massively expanded. The creator of the original article has had many problems with creating disaster stubs and one sentence vehicle accident stubs. CutlassCiera 18:14, 25 February 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Valencia_residential_building_fire&oldid=1211140380"