Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Rio de Janeiro building collapses

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. L Faraone 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Rio de Janeiro building collapses[edit]

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

Prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. While a significant amount of news coverage was published when the incident happened, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is a perfect example, headed for perma-stub status and is pretty much an orphan. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cinelândia (the square adjacent to the site) and delete as an unlikely search term. Stalwart111 01:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as mentioned in the nomination. That's a given. How does it pass WP:NOTNEWS #2? You haven't addressed that. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge under WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator has admitted that the article subject is notable. AfD is here to consider notability. Other concerns, such as tone or style, can be settled on the article talk page. WP:NOTNEWS is supplementary to our basic guidelines on notability and style. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 16:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS requires eduring notability - not GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Plenty of coverage, not routine news, so passes WP:NOTNEWS. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing, & sufficient importance, probably lasting importance.. (AfD , btw, is able to consider other considerations than notability in determining whether an article can exists--it is clear from many discussions that we can consider in addition whether something is worth covering at all, whether it would be more appropriately covered in a merge and, tho not applicable here, whether a neutral nonpromotional article is possible, as well as whatever other factors are considered relevant) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 20 June 2013 (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.