Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand firefighters killed in the line of duty

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 no consensus. This may be the best example of a no-consensus AfD in some time. There is extensive discussion with established editors taking opposing views of whether this is a notable intersection on which to build a list. With discussion split following the relist, I don't forsee consensus forming. Star Mississippi 02:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand firefighters killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

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

Sadly for them, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Wikipedia does not contain lists of firefighter deaths for any other country and the only other one to have known to exist (USA) has also been deleted too. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nominator expresses it perfectly. While it is sad that they have died, and while a memorial might be appropriate, Wikipedia is not the place for it. It has been a lot of hard work to get it this far, and that work might be transported to an appropriate website, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question Assuming we all agree on the WP:NOTMEMORIAL, nonetheless Wikipedia does have very many articles that are lists. This list seems interesting, seems useful, and fire fighter deaths are generally newsworthy events. So aside from the not-a-memorial argument, how does this compare against just every other list? If we have List of bakers, List of Fireman Sam episodes, and List of pilots with foreign Aviator's Certificates accredited by the Royal Aero Club 1910–14 and List of kebabs why would we not have this list? CT55555 (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 That sounds more like a question for the Village Pump, where policy can be made and unmade. It woudl be a shame to divert the discussion here to a general conversation 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting or implying policy should change, nor trying to open up a wider debate. I don't know much about the inclusion criteria for lists. I'm sincerely asking if this meets the normal criteria for a list article on its own merits. CT55555 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is WP:LISTN - we have lists, but only where the lists as such are notable. We do not have list articles simply because individual items in the list are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I think I'm following. It's not about if the individual events are notable, it's if the general thing is notable. So is the question I need to ask myself "Are deaths of fire fighters in New Zealand generally notable events?" Is that right, or is there a better lens to take? CT55555 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, while I believe the list is not notable, a physical memorial to "Firemen of [location] who have died in the line of duty" in a location might of itself be a notable geographic entity. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the not-a-memorial bit, but this seems like a list of events that seem exceptionally newsworthy occurrences in New Zealand, at least the fire fighters who have died on duty. That is the sort of thing that does make newspapers and TV news. But I'm still not voting, I fear I'm missing something, so waiting to understand better before voting. CT55555 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement one has to make is whether the intersection is notable. Are NZ Firefighters notable? To those who love them, yes, otherwise no. Is it notable that some firefighters die in the line of duty? Probably an everyday occurrence. Now, is the intersection of those two less than notable things (the article itself) notable? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your conclusions, but I thank you for sharing guidance on how to analyze the issue. I feel sufficiently informed to !vote now. Noting we disagree, I do welcome critique of my !vote and remain open to being persuaded otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deaths of New Zealand fire fighters are notable events that make the news due to their relative rarity (by my calculation once every 830 days in the time period this article covers). I respect that Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL so have focused my analysis on simply if the type of events listed as collectively notable, which I think they are, on the basis that they tend to make the news. The inclusion of deaths while not on duty, I think, is not notable and I think they should not be included in the article, but I think that is a separate discussion from this AfD. I think the article provides useful encyclopedic information and while I recognize this may be an emotive topic, I believe I am able to make this argument simply on the basis of notability without favour to the profession and without desiring to memorialize the deceased. CT55555 (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable within the context of New Zealand, but I agree that it is not within a global sense. The sources used for the New Zealand list are generally significant national newspapers within New Zealand hence meet WP:RS. I think it has sufficient credibility for the list to meet the criteria of WP:LSC as it is confined to a specific sub-set of New Zealand Firemen. I do agree with Ajf773's sentiment that such a list of all firemen killed in the US would be of doubtful merit, but note that List of emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks is an event specific list of the same. As you can see by comparing both lists, they are similar in size. To my mind it is practical to make such a list in a New Zealand context but impractical in a US one. NealeWellington (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was a difficult one and not sure yet which way to vote, as was thinking both WP:NOTMEMORIAL and is it all just WP:BIO1E - People notable for one event but in the end I think keep maybe appropriate as it is generally significant in NZ if a fire-fighter does die on the job. One note on an area I'm not great on, is if this is a problem when basically 86% of the article is a straight copy of the reference? I realise It's hard to not copy when it's a list but the wording in each circumstances' column is the same, on the flipside, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more newspaper articles out there for each death as well though.
As a suggestion, WP:BIO1E, as per my reading guides in the decision if the article should be about a person "John Smith" or the event "John Smith's death". It says if someone's death is not major (the killing of a world leader) then maybe a redirect to an article (my suggestion: I list) is the correct path. i.e. My interpretation of WP:BIO1E's relevance to this here is that it guides us away from individual articles and towards keeping something like this. CT55555 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True CT55555 that interpretation makes sense more of the policy and helps justify it being an article of the list of the events.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 14:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I notice a spelling error from the original source recreated in the article. I'll look in Papers Past in case the event is recorded there and refer to that. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This inherently violates the not memorial prong of Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It seems notable enough to me. I get that Wikipedia's not a memorial, but this doesn't seem to be a memorial, it seems to be a list. Krystal Kalb (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it’s a rare event in a smallish country, which is frequently covered in the news, so there’s some degree of notability. Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by the nominator. Even if we accept that the death of a firefighter is notable (which on the whole I don't) there seems no reason to single out New Zealand: why not USA? why not Germany? why not Bangladesh? why not Paraguay? Most of the lists of people on Wikipedia that I am familiar with (for example the List of biologists) are restricted to people who are individually notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but in fact none of the people in this list are notable by that criterion. Athel cb (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "why single out New Zealand"? It's the only one we're being asked to discuss here. Point us towards the open AfD for any other and I'll assess and comment there. To your second point I think the guideline for lists doesn't require that each entry be notable, just that the topic be notable. I suggest to you that the question in front of us is "are deaths of fire fighters in New Zealand" notable events. And I point out they happen about once every two years and tend to make the news - i.e. from my perspective, it seems yes. CT55555 (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced. Notable. Not presented as a memorial. Llwyld (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Could someone link to the three best sources which treat this subject as a group? Scanning the article's citations, I don't see any independent sources that do so, which is typically important for WP:LISTN (especially when we're working with a list that isn't limited to notable people/events). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write this, I can't say this is one of the best source, but I'll suggest some that deal with the topic of New Zealand fire fighter deaths as a collective topic:
1. Public plaque next to the Firefighters Memorial, Kilmore Street, Auckland, New Zealand, erected in 2002 by Christchurch City Council.
South, Wellington. "[https://brandmannenscancerfond.se/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2000-New-Zealand-study.pdf
1. Retrospective cohort study of mortality and cancer incidence in New Zealand fire fighters" (2000).
[1]

Assessing the classification of work-relatedness of fatal incidents: a comparison between Australia, New Zealand and the United States], 2010, https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.9.1.32.3321

1. https://ctif.org/sites/default/files/ctif_report15_world_fire_statistics_2010.pdf (table 6) CT55555 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (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.