Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraguay supermarket 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay supermarket fire

~~Non-notable event. This is not WikiNews.~~ ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: many much less notable events have article on WP. Pavel Vozenilek 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then go flag them for lack of notability. Existence of other less notable articles does not necessarily make this one notable enough. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm... We have things like Sampoong Department Store collapse. But that is interesting due to its engineering angle. Just a fire is much less encyclopedic. The way the article is now is a news item, not an encyclopedia article. OTOH if this happened in Los Angeles we'd have a huge article on it... No vote^{AfdIsNotAVote(TM)} yet, convince me :-) Weregerbil 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article adds little to the mention at August 2, 2004, which seems sufficient for a non-remarkable news event. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with the nominator in stating that it is a non-notable event. It was highly notable in Paraguay when it happened, and it's fairly rare for news from this small country to make worldwide headlines. I would argue however that being notable and verifiable are not sufficient criteria for the inclusion of "news events", as they are inherently verifiable and notable on some scale. I will agree with the nominator in stating that this is not WikiNews, this is an encyclopedia, and the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself. Arkyan 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "the only "news events" that should be getting their own articles here are ones that have some kind of far-reaching impact beyond the scope of the event itself." Is that a new policy? Were can i read about it? It would result in the deletion of most events articles. I would belive that hundreds of people killed would "have some kind of far-reaching impact". --Striver 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, did you read the article? ""Once [they're] organized I gave them the tools so they become activists to change the laws in terms of building construction, fire regulations, prosecution of the people who locked the [supermarket] doors. All the pressure points."--Striver 20:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're laughing at here. Regardless, I don't see much of a good faith effort at creating an encyclopedia article here, since you simply copied the content from this CNN story [1], and then inserted stuff about William Rodriguez. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What if this had happened in the United States? Punkmorten 20:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just as notable as the Hartford Circus Fire if not more so. Kappa 20:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as counter to systemic bias in favor of e.g. Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal, which injured 43 people who speak English. This needs expansion, not deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I'm withdrawing the nomination and closing the Afd, based on Dhartung & others. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2006 (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.