Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Lubra bushfire

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Lubra bushfire[edit]

Describes a wild fire with serious, but localized impact. Unsure if it meets criteria for notability. ~~To my knowledge most large wild-fires do not warrant their own articles and they often destroy substantial value.~~ It's not an open and shut case, but it's worth having others take a look at.

My new opinion is that the article is valuable. It does need some substantial copy-editing, however, the notability I think is on par with other disasters. However, I still think the issue should be decided and commented on by other editors. LH (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is notable, however, it will need some additional cleanup. LH (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage this attained and that it was a major fire I'd say Merge to the short Grampians_National_Park#History section. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious how every high wind gets an article, but bush fires etc. seem to have to meet a higher standard. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which high wind articles are you referring to? An article on wildfire it would be notable, but you linked to an article on a general subject, not a specific event. The question here is about the latter. If there are in fact a number of major disaster articles specific to their events, I will be the first to say that this weighs heavily in favor of keeping the article. Part of the nomination is because it's my instinct that the question is somewhat open. LH (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point was that every separate hurricane, cyclone, typhoon seems to get an article, but bushfires do not seem to be given the same benefit of the doubt. My personal theory is that it is because storms are given cute names like Katrina or Tracy. I reckon if bushfires were given names, their articles would be kept more often too. Who would delete an article called "Bushfire Chloe"? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't disagree with your point, but the touchstone here is of course notability. Katrina was a very notable storm given the damage it caused and political impact it had. Cyclone Tracy apparently destroyed 80% of the buildings in a town and caused $800m in damages (back in the 70s). Those are notable. But to bolster your point, Hurricane Isaac (2006) appears to be a non-notable storm in terms of its damage, but it has a full featured article. Similarly, there is a list of (for the US at least) wildfires of significance at the National Interagency Fire Center site (list). The question is whether this particular fire is of similar notability. That requires input from contributors familiar with Australian news. LH (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think the comparison with cyclones is a valid one. This fire did destroy 25 homes, numerous other buildings, thousands of acres of bushland, thousands of farm animals and two people were killed. It's a bit of a stretch to write it off as a mere wikinews article. The relative lack of bushfire articles is not an argument for lack of notability, but rather for the writing of new articles, which I've actually been meaning to do for a while. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2009 (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.