- 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. Tawker (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 2014 Boston Brownstone Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, there are thousands of residential fires around the world each week. No reason at all that this, albeit tragic, event is desrving of an article. Stephen 01:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fires that kill a couple of people are, unfortunately, very common. There will no doubt be lots of press coverage at the moment in the area concerned, but this is not an event of enduring notability. I would not object to a redirect as proposed above, however. Neljack (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is it that the Yarnell Hill Fire has that this one doesn't? And don't give me that "Otherstuffexists" bullshit, there's no question that the Yarnell Hill fire article is notable. Is it just that this was a routine, ho-hum, run of the mill nine-alarm house fire that just so happened to kill 2 firefighters, hospitalize 16 other people and prompt the city of Boston to hold the firefighters' funeral? And if it's so common, why didn't any other Boston firefighters die on the job in the preceding five years? Now to be clear, I'm very much on the fence with regard to notability here, and would probably be OK with a redirect as proposed above. However I'm not convinced by all these editors whipping out their crystal balls and then declaring that people will forget about this in a few weeks or so. Also, the stories compiled at this link should debunk any claims that this hasn't gotten much coverage outside "the area concerned." Jinkinson talk to me 02:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A significantly higher death toll. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the Yarnell Hill Fire has a great deal of analysis in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's absolutely ignorant to question whether to delete an article based on the casualties in other words how many people died. Even though Im the one who created this article I support Jinkinson with, its very unlikely for a Firefighter to die on the job. Like he said its been five years since a death before this fire. Also I support in keeping this article because even though theirs fire's every week around the world, its unlikely for a Firefighter to die and if so would gain as much publicity as this article would. User:EK728 3:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is not "ignorant"; casualties are an indication of notability. If every residential fire with two deaths merited an article, we would have thousands more articles. I am not opposed to a redirect. 331dot (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as Nate says. G S Palmer (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This fire has received more attention than any other Boston fire in the last 8 years(trends link just 1 source out of many possible). This will continue to be in the news as investigations are undertaken and reports are issued. After some considerable cleanup I believe this article will have considerable encyclopedic value like the majority of other fire articles on Wikipedia, providing information on what went wrong here and how it can be avoided in the future. It's comparatively small sure, but so are most 'disasters' that the US focuses intensely on for very long periods of time. It will also probably have to be moved to Beacon Street Fire instead of Brownstone Fire. It can always be deleted later if it truly fizzles out. Varixai (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This fire is not even close to the scale of those fires. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect, tragic and of local interest does not mean it deserves an article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. The notion that the article could be deleted if it "truly fizzles out" is exactly backwards: the subject might qualify for an article, a few years down the road, if it stands the test of time. It's hardly callous to point out that there are many fires, around the world, in which firefighters die. Boston alone has nearly a hundred and fifty occasions when firefighters have died in the line of duty, according to the BFD website. Should this subject gain an enduring impact -- and we can't tell that for a year or two -- the issue can be revisited then. Ravenswing 20:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it has nothing to do with millions of residential fires happening every week. Its more to do with the fact that is WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst the loss of life is regrettable there's nothing substantial in this article, plus parts of it look paraphrased. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very sad, but where's the WP:LASTING significance? As others have noted, events like this are common in firefighting. Tragic for those affected, but not unusual enough to meet WP:EVENT. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added a section to this article (the funeral section), so I think that now, there is something substantial in this article. Also, I thought it might be helpful to put the two deaths caused by this fire into further perspective by noting that 22 firefighters died in 2012 during fireground operations. [1] Jinkinson talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of you guys made an article bout some shooting at Fort Hood today, four dead. This one has two dead. Not a big difference plus its more of an honor thing to the people who died serving our country then creating some article bout a terrorists attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoFace728 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Strike sock of indeffed article creator Stephen 09:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Has not received significant coverage outside of short news cycle. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The funerals are receiving a lot of attention [2] 10,000 firefighters is a big number. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is an unusual fire that has received unusual amounts of attention as indicated by the sources and comments above. At worst, it is a case for merge+redirect - certainly no reason for the fire not to be covered at the department's page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the story continues to receive wide national (and not just local and regional) attention than is typical for stories of this type. E.g. here is a sample of national coverage just for today: LA Times [3], Wash Post [4], CNN[5], FoxNews[6], etc. Also, apparently this event has already lead to a change in the Massachusetts legislation, see [7]. Nsk92 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (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.