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 delete.  Sandstein  05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

911 nightclub fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. The article was previously prodded per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of enduring notability. Further search for sources did not reveal anything beyond the coverage of the event itself. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 3, 2010; 15:34 (UTC) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from article's author: at the time I wrote this, there was never any question of notability for this project. It was at a time hwere disasters were deemed inherently notable. Nowadays that is becoming less and less the case and I will be very interested to watch the debate. Whilst I keep in touch with Wikipedia's internal politics (so that I don't feel uncomfortable retaining my admin bits) another project (Wikinews) needs my main namespace contributions more and so I have lost touch with many of the consensuses relating to articles on various specialities. The subject received plenty of international coverage at the time but I have no idea how much follow-up there was in the media. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should just express an opinion. Consensus is shaped by your opinion, too. Everyking (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is true. Well, in my view it would be notable if there was significant international coverage in the months following (e.g. European, Middle-Eastern, American etc articles on the investigation, or any prosecutions etc) or lasting national impact (such as the example below of new regulations). I simply do not know if either were the case. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of press coverage. The article, which is about an event in Russia, is cited with a reference to BBC News—in other words, it was considered world news. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – At this time. Sorry to say, fires of this type are quite common either due to poor safety regulations – carelessness or plain stupidity. The death toll was only nine individuals. While any loss of life, even one individual is tragic, this particular fire does not meet the current notability standards , and falls under One Event or Not News versus situations such as Cocoanut Grove fire or Iroquois Theatre Fire or The Station nightclub fire where notability thresholds were meet by coverage of the situation – outcomes to local and national code standards, based on these particular incidents, and the vast amount of both local and international coverage of the fires because of the death tolls. However, on the other hand, I could see a List collating fires of this type (Nightclub Fires) where this particular incident is mentioned. That is a project for an energetic individual. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is it your argument that notability is determined by the number of dead ("Only 9 people? Chicken feed. Run that death toll up into triple digits and then we can talk.") or that it is determined by the amount of attention received by the event? Given the fact that this fire was considered world news, I don't see how you can make the latter argument, but the former argument is absurd. Everyking (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ezhiki, but at same time per Shoessss, it could be mentioned in a list of some sorts. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weak Delete. Appears not to have received any coverage outside of concurrent newspaper articles.--PinkBull 21:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was in Russia; we don't have access to most of the sources. You don't think there was any follow up about a story like this? Everyking (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, but it assumes Russia has a culture of taking these mishaps seriously to the extent that the story stays notable for more then just the short-term. It's a valid assumption, but I'm not willing to take that jump due to the lack of support for that claim. I'll modify my vote for now pending an expansion of sourcing. --PinkBull 04:46, 11 May 2010 (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.