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. Notable subject, AFD withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 07:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amoycan Industrial Centre 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)

Wikipedia is wp:notnews, Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator I withdraw my nomination. Apparently, from a Hong Kong perspective this is a notable event, according to the comments and ivotes below.

• I believe that it should be kept as it is not just a routine news but an incident with a considerable amount of notability, as it is Hong Kong's longest-running fire in 20 years.^[1] --Peter Yeung (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please add a "Keep" at the very first if you support for keeping the article please. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This has potential to be merged to Ngau Tau Kok § 2016 fire, rather than just be deleted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article creator). I think this meets inclusion criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events). The event has had a great depth of coverage from all media outlets in Hong Kong, as well as some regional and international coverage [1]. The death toll is quite notable by HK standards, as is the length of the fire and difficulty in extinguishing it. There is already talk of lasting ramifications including addressing the widespread issue of mini-storage facilities in old industrial buildings [2]. There has also been coverage of discord within the Fire Services Department in relation to this fire [3]. The disagreement between the Buildings Department and other engineers on the structural safety of the building is also notable. Citobun (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This event should be regarded as one of the two most disastrous fire ever in Hong Kong. It broke the Hong Kong record time of a building caught fire. Actually there would have a lot of investigation report to be announced at the future. There is a large notability for this event. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems from a Hong Kong perspective this is a notable event, according to the comments and ivotes above. So, I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2016 (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.